681 
166 
spy 1 



SPEECH 



OP 



STANLEY MATTHEWS 



AT ATHENS, OHIO, 



y\UQU^T 25, 1877, 



ON POLITICAL QUESTIONS 



CINCINNATI : 
ROBERT CLARKE & CO., PRINTERS 

1877. 



SPEEC H 



OF 



y 



STANLEY MATTHEWS 



AT ATHENS, OHIO 



y^UQU^T 25, 1877; 



ON POLITICAL QUESTIONS. 




CINCINNATI : 
ROBERT CLARKE & CO., PRINTERS. 

1S77. 



Fellow- Citizens : 

The present political contest in this State opens upon 
its people in circumstances of unusual interest, and opens 
to discussion many qnestions of nnusual gravit3^ Some of 
them are invested with the attraction of novelty ; some of 
them, if not altogether new, acquire new importance in 
consequence of new relations and new applications ; some 
are more familiar, but not, on that account, trite and hack- 
neyed, while others require us to consider the administra- 
tration of onr Governments, State and I^ational— not in 
the aspect of party interests and divisions, but penetrating 
below the surface of ordinary political debate, to explore 
principles which lie at the foundation of government itself, 
the explanation of which is to be sought in the solutions 
of social philosophy. 

Let it not be said that themes so profound and momen- 
tous are unfit for popular discussion ; that such issues are 
incapable of settlement by the popular judgment. The 
human mind is master of human destiny. The necessity 
of thought and action is upon the race. There is no tri- 
bunal but human reason for the solution of the problems of 
life, and it is the educated reason of mankind which cor- 
rects by cancellation the aberrations of conflicting and con- 
tradictory interests adverse to truth, and which constitutes 
the philosophj of common sense, that harnesses together, in 
equal speed, the original and divine wisdom of individual 
genius and the acquired w^isdom of common experience, 
and drives the triumphant chariot of human progress, with 
smoking wheels, to the goal of a perfected social life. To 
this end human governments exist and are administered; 
to this end are civil freedom and public liberty developed 
and established in republican institutions, based on uni- 
versal sufl'rage ; to this end are the generous rivalry and 
healthy strife of political parties, however tainted for the 
time with sordid, mean, and dishonorable passions ; to 

(3) 



[4] 

this end, that righteousness and peace ma}" possess the 
people and rule the land ! 

The chief topics thus brought forward for discussion, 
either b}- ourselves or our political opponents, may be stated 
as follows : 

1. The Presidential Title, charged by the Democratic 
party to have been acquired by Republican frauds, and ex- 
ercised without moral right. 

2. The Southern Policy of the Administration, as man- 
ifested in its failure to recognize and refusal to support by 
militar}' force the claims of the so-called Chamberlain and 
Packard State Governments in South Carolina and Louis- 
iana respectively. 

3. The principles.of the reform of the Civil Service, di- 
vorcing the official influence of the Federal Government 
from the management of party politics. 

4. The reform of the Currency by a resumption of specie 
payments through the remonetization of silver. 

5. The reconciliation of the claims of Property and of 
Labor by protecting the rights of both, and harmonizing 
their interests, so far as that can be promoted, by legiti- 
mate and constitutional exertions of the powers of Gov- 
ernment, State and National. 

Fortunatel}' the Republican party is accustomed to deal 
with questions both new and large. No issues so mighty, 
so difficult, so fraught with weal or woe, have ever been 
conducted to more successful and prosperous results than 
those with which it has been charged. Born of the sen- 
timent which looked upon negro slavery as a reproach to 
our name, a blot upon our institutions, and a burden to 
our prosperity, it organized itself to protect the Constitu- 
tion against its encroachments. Its advent to power as a 
political party was resisted by war against the integrity 
of the Union. By war it maintained the indestructibility 
of the Union, and awoke in the hearts of the people the 
vivid consciousness that we are a Nation, one and indivis- 
ible. It overthrew the institution of American slaver}', as 
the sole cause of sectional divisions, the one standine- threat 
against our peace, and converted four millions of slaves 



into freemen ; and for their self-protection and the means 
of their political education, incorporated them into the 
body politic as citizens, upon the broad ground of tiie 
equality of all men, as such, before the law. It has re- 
stored to their proper relations in the Union the recon- 
structed States, equal in all respects with their sister states, 
sharing in just proportions the burdens and the benelits of 
self-government. It has reconciled the principles of the 
Declaration of Independence with the Federal Constitution, 
and in this fundamental law has adjusted the true theory 
of the rights of men, the autonomy of the States, and the 
authority of the Nation. The same justice which it has 
introduced into the relations of its members and constitu- 
ents at home, it has practiced in its intercourse with the 
community of nations, and established on a lirm and last- 
ing footing our peace abroad, securing the respect and 
good will of all the world. 

Struggling under the load of a colossal debt, we have 
strengthened our public credit by a conscientious and 
punctilious observance of good faith in our dealings with 
our creditors, and have introduced among ourselves a Ni^- 
tional Money, which, when placed upon a permanent basis, 
and adjusted with the gold and silver standards of the 
world, is destined to realize the dreams of political econo- 
mists of a perfect currency. We have addressed ourselves 
with diligence and earnestness to the improvement of the 
machinery of civil administration and the purilication of 
party politics, opening the way -more perfectly for the orig- 
inal and independent action of the people in their primary 
assembhes, in shaping the political conduct of public af- 
fairs, so that, through a pure civil service, we may realize 
the ideal — of a government of the people, bij the people, /or 
the people. 

The great mission of the Republican party has been to 
educate the people in the great ideas which are the living 
source of social and political progress. Its most ditiicult 
task has been to educate that portion of the people that 
naturally belong to the Democratic party. And yet, even 
here, its labors have not been without fruit, and it has met 



[6] 

with most encouraging success. In 1860, it turned them 
out of power and phace. In 1865, it convinced them that 
the war for the Union was not a faikire. It reconciled 
them to the abolition of slaver}', and, after incorporating 
universal freedom and equal suffrage into the amended 
Constitution, induced them to incorporate them into the 
Democratic platform ; so that while the Republican part}^ 
pursued the line of march from one reform to another, the 
Democrats have followed at respectful distance, bivouack- 
ing each night in our deserted camps, hanging on our rear, 
and picking up our stragglers, sore-footed and sore-headed 
— its only victories, its only trophies, and its only recruits. 
And now, the Republican party having settled the great 
questions of Secession, of the Civil War, of Emancipation, 
of Equal Suffrage and Citizenship, of Nationality, of Re- 
construction, of State Self-Government, of the Public Debt 
and Credit, laid the foundations of the National Currency 
of the future, begun the great work of Civil Reform, 
moves on, without fear, to the other and perhaps greater 
questions now rising for debate and decision. It will meet 
them, I believe, with courage, and solve them with success. 
It will still pursue with confidence the paths of progress 
and of peace, under its broad and ancient banner — Equal 
and exact justice to all men— until it answers to the de- 
scription given of the model American Statesman and 
Hero — the great Washington— first in War, first in Peace, 
first in the hearts of its Countrymen. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL TITLE. 

The instances in our political history have been rare, in- 
deed, in which there was any question as to the integrity 
of a Presidential election. We have been happily free 
from that which has been too often the plague and torment 
of countries in which the title to Executive power is deter- 
mined by the law of hereditary succession, and where dis- 
putes of dynasties have plunged the hapless people into the 
miseries and anarchy of civil war. Respectful submission 
to the result of free and fair election, declared according to 
the forms of law, by duly constituted authorities, is the law 



[7] 

of our well-being, as it is the very spirit of republican in- 
stitutions, and has, in general, been that habit of the 
American peo[)le, which marked their special fitness for free 
self-government. 

And yet our own experience is not without its warnings, 
as it has not been without its perils and its trials. 

In the very beginning of the century — in 1800 — the 
Presidency became the subject of an intrigue, b}^ which 
Burr, having received, on the same ticket with Jefferson, 
an equal number of electoral votes, without a designation 
of either, as the Constitution then stood, to the offices of 
President and Vice-President, sought to defeat the known 
preference of the electoral body. The election devolved 
on the House of Representatives, which was so evenly di- 
vided as to put the result into great doubt. Nothing but 
the ±irm and clear-sighted patriotism of Alexander Hamil- 
ton averted the danger, whose magnitude none so w^ell as 
he comprehended. He paid the penalty for this eminent 
public service with his life; for it is not doubtful that this 
was the mortal offense which, four years later, he expiated 
on the bloody field of Hoboken. 

Afterward, in 1824, the Presidential choice devolved 
again on the House of Representatives. Jackson had re- 
ceived the highest number of electoral votes, but was de- 
feated by a coalition between Adams and Clay. Adams 
became President, and Clay, Secretary of State. The 
result was regarded by General Jackson and his friends as 
proof of the " bargain, intrigue, and corruption," which, in 
1828, was the staple accusation against the party of Adams 
and Clay, and which pursued them both for many years 
after. The sober judgment of even contemporary history 
exonerated these distinguished men from the charge of 
dishonorable intrigue; but the Jackson Democracy as- 
serted and believed it quite as honestly, to say the least, as 
the Tilden-Adams Democracy of to-day imputes alleged 
wrong to President Hayes. The good name of a public 
man is the property of the Commonwealth. He who slan- 
ders it defames himself and impeaches his own credibility. 

In 1861, the Democratic party rent asunder the Union 



[8] 

rather than peaceably submit to the inauguration of a Re- 
publican President. There was no question as to the fact 
or rightfulness of his election ; but it was made the pre- 
text and signal for a disruption. The Democratic party 
had taught itself to believe that it was the exclusive depos- 
itary of some divine right to rule ; and the election of Mr. 
Lincoln, though constitutional in itself, rudely shocked the 
party tradition of infallibility. He was treated as an in- 
truder and a trespasser whom it was lawful to eject and 
expel. There was not then, as now, the same solicitude 
that the public will, as expressed through constitutional 
forms, should be accepted and obeyed ; and it is to be 
hoped that some part of the concern now manifested by 
the Democratic party in that behalf is dictated by remorse 
on account of the attempt heretofore made, in its name, to 
defeat the adverse choice of the people. Neither should it 
be forgotten in this connection, that it was the license of 
rude and malevolent speech, born of the malice of party 
disappointment, that hatched its wicked progeny in the 
brain of Wilkes Booth, and introduced for the first time 
in our politics the example of assassination as an instru- 
ment of party success. 

The slander of the Presidential title would seem to be 
altogether inconsecpiential ; and yet it seems to be indulged 
in with gravity by antiquated Democrats, who mistake 
themselves for saints, when the}'^ are merely mummies; and 
spots the columns of fly-blown newspapers, in paragraphs 
pointed with malice, which they confound with wit. The 
authority and dignity of the Presidential oiSce are gath- 
ered, like robes of State, upon the person of Rutherford 
B.Hayes; and worthily he wears them! He sits in the 
chair of the Chief Magistracy, supported by the law of 
the land and the voice of the people ; calm and compla- 
cent in the conscious possession of the public respect and 
affection ; caring far less for his personal place, either in 
power or in history, than that he should administer his 
high trust with wisdom, and deserve well of the country 
he seeks to benefit and serve. It is nothing to him cer- 
tainly — quite as little to any one else, perhaps — that there 



[9] 

be some too dainty to meet the warmth of his grasp with 
an ungloved hand — that the Josliua of the Maidiattan Chib 
bids the sun to stop, and the planet to cease revolving^ 
until Cronin's vote is counted — that clowns and harlequins, 
in paint and feathers, the mock savages of St. Tammany, 
brandishing war clubs stuffed with saw-dust, with " long- 
talks " of lie jure and de facto, magnify the ivampum they 
might have captured, if their braves had not all proved to 
have been j)ale faces. 

The legal title of the President to his office in unques- 
tioned. There is not only no mode or means by which it 
can be brought into question, but there is no ground on 
which it could be assailed. In his inauguration, every 
theory of constitutional law, no matter how variant, was 
full}' satisfied. The certificates containing the electoral 
votes were opened by the President of the Senate, in the 
presence of both Houses of Congress, the votes were then 
counted and the result declared. They were counted and 
declared by the presiding officer of the Senate, with the 
concurring authority of both Houses, acting under a law, 
passed by Congress and approved by the Executive, provid- 
ing the mode by which the count should be made and the 
result ascertained and declared. In case of dispute con- 
cerning the electoral vote of a State, from which but one 
certificate had been made and forwarded, the vote as certi- 
fied it was provided, should be counted unless both Houses 
concurred in rejecting it. When two or more certificates 
were forwarded, the question what votes should be counted 
as the votes of that State, were referred to a special tril)unal 
— the Electoral Commission — created by law for that pur- 
pose and empowered to decide every question arising be- 
fore it, as fully as by law Congress itself could do, whose 
decision, it was, by the law of its creation, enacted, should 
stand as the decision of the two Houses, unless overruled 
by their joint dissent. 

This law was passed by a Democratic House and a Re- 
publican Senate. It was supported by every Democratic 
Senator but one, and by the great body of Democratic 
members of the House, with almost the like unanimity. 



[10] 

It was advocated on all sides, as a measure, which would 
insure not onl}' a peaceful, but a satisfactory settlement of 
the threatening controversies which had arisen in reference 
to the result of the Presidential election ; and to that end, 
abundant assurances were publicly given in debate, that 
whatever might be the decision of the tribunal, it would 
not only be accepted, but acquiesced in, as conclusive and 
incapable of being questioned. 

And yet what do we now see? An attempt to reopen, 
for partisan discussion, tlie whole question of this Presi- 
dential Settlement, not on]y as to its correctness in point of 
law, but as to its good faith. I knoAV of nothing meaner 
or more unmanly in our party history. The spirit and de- 
termination of this reckless and unscrupulous opposition 
became manifest in the course of the Presidential Count; 
and when it had become apparent, from the decisions of 
the Electoral Commission, that the hopes of a favorable 
result to the Democratic candidates must be disappointed, 
an open and combined eflbrt to defeat the proceeding, with 
whatever consequences to the peace and well-being of the 
country, was revealed and even proclaimed, in violation of 
law, on the part of a large number of Democratic members 
who had voted for the bill, and who favored it, as long as 
they thought it would secure them a party advantage. 
How they can reconcile such a course to a nice sense of 
personal honor, is a problem for themselves to solve, if they 
consider it of any importance. The country owes much, 
in the defeat of this revolutionary attempt, to the firmness 
of Mr. Randall, the Speaker, and to the parliamentary 
skill and the patriotism of Mr. Fernando Wood, and to the 
honorable and manly resistance of many Southern Demo- 
cratic members. Conspicuous up^on the sid of the disturb- 
ers of the public peace were most of the Democratic dele- 
gation from this State, particularly those who, at the last 
popular election for Congressmen, had failed to obtain the 
indorsement of their constituents, and who, during their 
Congressional career, having made but little, if any, repu- 
tation for useful abilities, seemed determined, at least, to 
demonstrate that they had a talent for mischief. 



[11] 

It is alleged, in extenuation of tlicir attempted repudia- 
tion of their own work, by J)cniocratic politicians, that 
the Electoral Commission was a purely partisan body, de- 
cidino; every question in accordance with the [tarty bias of 
a majority of its members. It is, indeed, true that all ma- 
terial decisions of the tribunal were rendered, upon votes, 
on which the Democratic members voted one w^ay and the 
Republican members another. But the controversy was 
political in its nature, and the ditterenees between the [)ar- 
ties, it ought not to be denied, were honestly entertained. 
Is it any more to be wondered at that Republicans should 
believe their own party to be right than that Democrats 
should be subject to a similar infatuation? But the com- 
plaint is unjust and puerile. It ought to have been made, 
if at all, against the very constitution of the Commission 
itself, for the very principle of its organization was to di- 
vide it equally in membership between the two parties, tak- 
ing live from the House and five from the Senate, and four 
from the bench of the Supreme Court, w'ith a fifth judge, 
to be the fifteenth Commissioner, selected by agreement of 
the four judges already chosen, and who, of course, had to 
belong to one or the other of the two parties. If this 
choice had fallen on a Democrat, there is no expectation 
that the decisions would have been less partisan than they 
were, though there is reason to suppose that the Democrats 
would not then have been the complaining party. 

But it is said that the CoraniissioD refused to hear evi- 
dence which they were bound to receive. But the question 
of whether it was competent for them, by law, to receive 
and hear evidence, was one of the very questions the Tri- 
bunal was organized to decide. The title of the act was, 
*' To provide for and regulate the counting of votes for Presi- 
dent and Vice-President, and the decision of questions arising, 
thereon,^' etc. It provided, in the case of two conflicting 
returns from any State, that they should " 6e submitted to 
the judgment and decision as to irJiich is the true and lawful 
electoral vote of such State,'' of the Commission constituted 
thereby. The returns, 'and papers accompanying them, 
and the objections thereto, in all such cases, were requiretl 



[12] 

to be submitted to the Commission, " which shall proceed," 
says the statute, " to consider the same, with the same 
powers, if any, now possessed for that purpose by the tw^o 
houses acting separately or together, and by a majority of 
votes decide whether any and what votes from such States 
are the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United 
States, and how many and what persons were duly ap- 
pointed Electors in such State, and may therein take into 
view such petitions, depositions, and other papers, if any, as 
shall by the Constitution and now existing laws be competent 
and pertinent in such consideration.'''' The Democratic ob- 
jectors and counsel offered to submit certain testimony to 
impeach the validity of the Republican returns from cer- 
tain States. This w\as objected to as not competent evi- 
dence. The question was argued, and decided by the 
Commission, sustaining the objections and ruling out the 
testimony offered. 

That the Commission, in reaching this result, Avcre in 
the rightful exercise of admitted jurisdiction, is sufficiently 
manifest from the terms of the law\ That the particular 
result reached was in the contemplation of those who ad- 
vocated the passage of the law, is shown by the debates 
upon the bill when pending in Congress. 

Senator Thurman, in a speech in favor of the bill (Jan- 
uary 24, 1877), said : 

" All that we could do was to constitute a tribunal as 
honest and impartial and fair as we could make it, as likely 
to be intelligent and learned and honest as we could find, 
and as likely to command the respect of the country as 
any we could frame, and submit to that, as we submit to 
our Supreme Judicial Tribunal, the Supreme Court of the 
United States, the constitutional questions that are involved 
in this subject." 

He then proceeds to enumerate the questions of this 
character that had already arisen, and specifies eleven, ou 
which parties had divided, and said : 

" The decision of any one of these propositions in this 
bill, if it could be made, would most probably decide the 
present contest in regard to who is President-elect." 



[13] 

Among them he specifies the question, whether it is 
competent to go behind the certificate of the Governor, 
whether it is competent to go behind the decision of a can- 
vassing or rernrniiig board, to impeach it for want of juris- 
diction, or for fraud, etc. ; and continuing his argument, 
said : 

" Sir, we took the only course that was open to us; we 
provided a tribunal, just as individuals who can not settle 
their controversies, must go to the Courts in order that they 
may be settled by a judicial tribunal. Just so, when these 
two houses can not agree, they must call in the benefit of an 
honest, an able, and a learned tribunal, and weigh its de- 
cision before they ultimately decide ; and that is all that 
this bill does. - Therefore it is that this bill leaves every ques- 
tion to this tribunal, with the power, as I said before, of review 
and reversal by the two houses." 

The very point was distinctly brought out when Senator 
Morton, who opposed the bill, offered an amendment* as 
follows : 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall author- 
ize the said Commission to go behind the finding and de- 
termination of the canvassing or returning officers of a 
State, authorized by the laws of the State to find and de- 
termine the result of an election for electors." 

Senator Edmunds, who supported the bill, "in order," as 
he said, " to guard against the slant which the rejection of 
this amendment might in some minds produce in respect 
of the opinions of the passers of this bill," moved to amend 
the amendment so that it should read : 

" That the said Commission shall have authority to go 
behind the finding and determination of the canvassing or 
returning officers," etc. 

Both propositions were rejected, thus leaving the bill to 
stand without an implication either way, and leaving the 
question of its own jurisdiction open, for the decision of 
the Commission, upon the Constitution and the existing 
laws. 

The question of the correctness of the decisions of the 
Trilninal is one that, considering the character of the men 



[14] 

who composed it, ought not now to be mooted as a politi- 
cal issue ; yet the principles of constitutional law aiSrmed 
by them are of permanent interest. They are few and 
simple, and need only to be clearly stated to be understood 
and vindicated. 

They may be stated as follows : 

1. The choice of Presidential Electors, to be made by 
each State in the manner provided by its Legislature, is a 
matter solely within the jurisdiction of the State. 

2. That when the choice has been made, the form and 
expression and record of it constituting the fact of a com- 
plete process, with an ascertained and declared result, is 
irrevocable and unimpeachable; unless in some mode and 
by some authority provided by the State itself, as a part of 
the verificatioii of the proceeding. 

3. That any such correction of an apparent choice must 
be had, if at all, before the time when the designated elec- 
tors are required by federal law, to perform the function of 
their office, by actually casting the vote of the State. 
When that time has arrived, the whole matter passes the 
line that divides, on this subject, the State and Federal 
jurisdictions. 

4. That the canvass and record of the election constitutes 
the fact of the election, and is the official and unimpeach- 
able declaration of its result ; but the certificate-of that 
fact, given by a certifying officer, is but an instrument of 
evidence, which, if false, may be corrected by a comparison 
with the recorded fact, to which it professes to correspond. 

Applying these principles to the controverted cases, the 
Commission decided, that the persons declared to have 
been chosen electors in Florida, Louisiana, and South Car- 
olina by the boards or officers, who were charged with that 
duty by law, were the true electors for that State ; that the 
proceedings in Florida, subsequent to the casting of the 
electoral vote, by which it was sought to set aside the prior 
action of the State, were null, and without jurisdiction; 
and that, in counting the electoral votes, it was not compe- 
tent for Congress to enter into a contest over the title of 
any of the electors ; but that in the case of Oregon, where 



[15] 

the Governor falsely certified the election of an elector, 
when by the canvass and record of the election itself, an- 
other appeared and had been declared to have been elected, 
Congress had the right and was bound to receive the fact 
and reject the false certificate. 

Candid men of all parties must ultimately acknowledge 
the soundness of these principles. The distinguished Sen- 
ator from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) in a speech in the Senate 
on February 25, 1875, substantially affirmed them. He 
said : 

"And nowhere is power given to either House of Con- 
gress to pass upon the election, either the manner or the 
fact, of electors for the President and Vice-President ; and 
if the Congress of the United States, either one or both 
Houses, shall assume, under the guise or pretext of telling 
or counting a vote to decide the fact of the election of elec- 
tors who are to form the college by whom the President 
and Vice-President are to be chosen, then they will have 
taken upon themselves an authority for which I, for one, 
can find no warrant in this charter of limited powers." 
" There is no pretext that for any cause what- 
ever Congress has any power, or all the other departments 
of the Government have any power to refuse to receive 
and count the result of the action of the voters in the States 
in that election as certified by the electors whom they have 
chosen. That questions may arise whether that choice was 
made, that questions may arise whether that election was 
properly held or whether it was a free and fair election, is 
undoubtedly true; but there is no machinery provided for 
contest, and no contest seems to have been anticipated on 
this subject. It is casus omissus, intentionally or otherwise, 
upon the part of those who framed this government, and 
w^e must take it as it is, and if there be necessity for its 
amendment, for its supplement, that must be the action of 
the American people in accordance with the constitution 
itself; and I am free to say that some amendment on this 
subject should be had." 

The legal validity of the President's title to his office, in- 
vested with every required formal security, and based on 



[16] 

the soundest, and fundamental constitutional principles, 
must, I think, be unanimously affirmed. But it may still 
be said that it is without the essential support of a moral 
right. 

It would seem rather a difficult undertaking, in a matter, 
involving no private interest, but simply a question of pub- 
lic rigiit, to attack successfull}^ a valid legal title to a public 
office, acquiesced in by the people, who alone have any 
rights to it, on the alleged ground of a moral defect. Cer- 
tainly, no incumbent, with a perfect legal title, can be 
called a usurper of an office; and, with equal certainty, it 
ought to be admitted that nothing short of personal par- 
ticipation in fraudulent practices clearly proven, which have 
been used successfully as an instrument of intrusion, should 
subject any man to tlie odious charge. No greater outrage 
upon the elective franchise was ever attempted than that 
which was involved in the effort to count the vote of Cronin, 
as an Elector of Oregon. Yet, if, on grounds of tech- 
nical law, it had prevailed — or what, under the circum- 
stances, was equivalent, the vote of Watts had been re- 
jected, as every Democratic member of the Commission 
voted to do — would Mr. Tilden, on that account, have de- 
clined Inauguration — would Mr. Chas. Francis Adams have 
scornfully refused to become his Secretary of State ? Such 
suppositions are not within the limits of the probable. 

The responsibility of political parties to the people for 
their conduct, and the conduct of their leaders and organs, 
in reference to the freedom and purity of elections, can not 
and ought not to be denied. They must be held to strict 
account for the observance of the rules of morality, and 
for sincere respect for popular rights in all their political 
conduct. 'No party has, perhaps, been altogether free from 
offenses of this description ; and yet the Republican party, 
I think, has a right to claim a contrast between itself and 
the Democratic party, in that particular, not favorable to 
its adversary. The frauds in Plaquemine Parish, in Louis- 
iana, in 1844, were never censured b}^ those in whose in- 
terest they Avere perpetrated; while corrui)tion of the bal- 
lot, as of every other political agency, incorporated in the 



[17] 

TammaiiA' Society of the city of ^ew York, tlic lieadquar- 
ters of Democratic party politics, has delivercfl that great 
city and State into the power of a series of " bosses," who 
dictate legisUitiou and divide offices with impartial eftron- 
tery. In our own State, we have had recent ilhistratioii of 
its evil power. Two Congressional Districts are believed 
to have been carried for Democratic candidates by repeaters, 
hired and paid out of the party treasury, some of whom 
are even now paying the penalty of tlieir crimes in our 
jails and penitentiaries. But the most convincing proof 
of the contrast is that the Republican party has systemati- 
cally sought to guard and protect the ballot, so as to secure 
free and fair elections; and to that end, in our last General 
Assembly, passed a Registry Law, of the least onerous and 
stringent character, whose simple and most unobjectiona- 
ble features are reproached by the Democratic State Con- 
vention as discriminating against the poor I 

It is said, however, that the Republican party, as a l^a- 
tional party, is responsible for the frauds charged against 
the Returning Board of Louisiana ; if not by reason of 
previous instigation, then by subsequent ratification and 
adoption. 

Of the personal integrity of the members of that Board, 
tlie purity of their motives, the uprightness of their inten- 
tions, no one is called to be sponsor, because no one is 
competent to judge. I have, speaking for myself, seen no 
evidence whatever that justifies the cruel and unmerciful 
abuse to which they have been subject. Their imprison- 
ment by the last House of Representatives, as public 
officers of a State, for merely refusing to surrender public 
archives belonging to the State, no longer in their posses- 
sion, and which, if in their custody, they ought not to sur- 
render, was, to my mind, not merely a vindictive persecu- 
tion, but Avas among the grossest violations of personal 
right, and the grossest indignities to State authority ever 
perpetrated under sanction of a Federal power — a precedent 
full of danger to both private and public right. That they 
were not personally corrupt in the exercise of their official 
functions, in the canvass of the election in November, wa^ 



[18] 

sufficiently established in my convictions by the fact that 
they were not corrupted! If they had been what they are 
now charged with being, the probability is that Democratic 
charity would have been larger than tlie Democratic con- 
science, and would have covered and concealed their sin as 
wnth a garment — even the garment of praise ! 

But what we have to do with is the acts, not the motives, 
of these men. What did they which constitutes their 
offense ? 

The statements of the votes cast in the various parishes 
and voting precincts, which came into their hands officially, 
and from which they were required to make up their return 
of the election, showed, if compiled without correction, an 
apparent majority of some thousands for the Tilden electors. 
It also, however, appeared that this apparent majority 
was mainly composed of heavy Democratic majorities in 
five parishes, in which, at the last election held, a year be- 
fore, the majorities had been more largely the other way, 
and that there had been in operation no causes hkely to 
produce in them any marked change of political opinion. 
lu one of these parishes it appeared that not a single Re- 
publican vote had been cast. 

It further appeared that in these five parishes particularly, 
and elsewhere throughout the State, beginning with the 
opening of the political campaign in the spring of the year, 
and continuing until the very day of the election, an illegal 
military organization had patrolled the State, with the 
avowed purpose, by displays of violence and the infliction 
of violence, of preventing the colored voters of the State 
from voting for the Republican candidates. This fact, in 
my opinion, is fully proven. I do not believe that its sub- 
stantial truth will be denied by intelligent and candid per- 
sons, of any party, acquainted with the facts. I do not stop 
now to consider the provocations and excuses alleged in its 
palliation. The fact is that alone which is now material. 
Its effect was palpable and notorious. It had been efficient, 
to a large extent, in destroying the legitimate Republican 
vote, and thus had prevented a fair and free election. 

The duty in these circumstances of the Returning Officers 



[19] 

was prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Louis- 
iana. 

Tlie 103d Article of the Constitution declared that "the 
privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws re- 
gulating elections, and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, 
all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, or 
other improper practice." 

The Election Laws of the State expressly made it the 
duty of the Returning Oflicer!*, in case they should be con- 
vinced of the existence of any of the enumerated causes, 
which materially interfered with the purity and freedom of 
the election at an}- voting place, to exclude from their re- 
turns the statements of the poll at such place. 

This, and this only, is what this Board did iu canvassing 
and compiling the votes at the Presidential election, purg- 
ing the election of results effected by intimidation and 
violence, so as to restore, as nearly as could be done, the 
purity, fairness and freedom of the election. As it was, it 
was but an approximation ; for they could not restore to the 
ballot-box the thousands of votes, which, through fear, the 
voters had failed to deposit. And it can not reasonably be 
doubted that if the election had been allowed to take place 
peaceably and without intimidation and violence, the 
majority of votes actually cast would have been largely in 
favor of the Republican candidates. 

An outcrv has been made ao-ainst this alleo-ed disfran- 
chisement of voters, who may not themselves have been 
guilty of the forfeiting cause ; but no principle in the law 
of elections is better settled, or settled upon better reasons 
than this : th\it an election, which is not fair and free, is no 
election at all. If the vote, as actually cast, is the final 
test of the election, without regard to how, and by whom, 
and under what circumstances cast, and regardless, too, of 
those which have, by unfair n^eans, been prevented from 
being cast, then an election, instead of being a peaceful 
comparison of opinions, will be simply a struggle of physical 
strength, deciding which party has superior force. 

In strange contrast to these Democratic complaints in 
reference to the correction of the electiqu returns from 



[20] 

Louisiana by the officers charged by law with that duty, so 
as to purge the election from the vicious effects of violence 
and intimidation, are the positions taken by the Demo- 
cratic objectors and counsel in the case of South Carolina 
before the Electoral Commission. In that case the objec- 
tions made to the Eepublican Electoral vote were, in sub- 
stance : 

1. That the election was void, because the Legislature of 
the State had failed to execute a provision of the State 
Constitution requiring the passage of Registry Laws. 

2. That the election was void by reason of intimidation, 
caused partly by the mere presence of troops of the United 
States, sent there by the President on the call of the Gover- 
nor, to preserve the peace ; and bj- intimidation alleged to 
have been practiced by both whites and blacks. Democrats 
and Re})ublicans. Mr. Hurd, of Ohio, who represented the 
Democratic objectors in this case, admitted the principle, 
that " if lawlessness prevail so that it is impossible there 
should be a lawful election ; if violence is practiced, so that 
men are not able freely to go to the polls ; if intimidation 
be practiced, so that large numbers of men who would 
otherwise vote, do not go near the polls, or who, if they do 
go to the polls, are compelled to vote against their will, 
then an election, held under such circumstances, is held in 
a condition of anarchy, in which a republic is a mere myth 
and a fiction." 

In order, therefore, to invalidate the election in South 
Carolina, and to reject its electoral vote entirely from the 
Count, he claimed the right to prove, not merely the in- 
timidation by Kepublicans of Democratic voters, but in 
addition said : 

" We propose to show by the testimony which was taken 
by the minority of the Committee that in counties which 
gave large Democratic majorities the Democratic leaders 
and managers interfered with the freedom of the election 
by practicing intimidation u})on their black employes and 
those who might happen to live within their district, AYe 
propose to show that rifle clubs were organized, which were 
not disbanded in accordance with the proclamation of the 



[21] 

President of the United States, and that under the effects of 
these rife dabs, and the intimidation that was -practiced in that 
method, large numbers of negroes, who otherwise ivoidd haoe 
voted the Republican ticket, voted the Democratic ticket." 

In conclusion, therefore, I think we may venture to claim, 
with the greatest confidence, that there is no occasion that 
the Democratic party in this State should, as its Conven- 
•tion declares it does, '' look upon the inauguration of E,. B. 
Hayes to the high office of President of the United States" 
"as the most dangerous encroachment upon popular rights 
that has ever been attempted in this or any other free 
country ;" that it was not accomplished " in spite of a ma- 
jority of the electoral vote and popular vote given by the 
people to Samuel J. Tilden," but that, on the contrary, it 
w^as the peaceful triumph of constitutional principles, vin- 
dicating the freedom of the elective franchise against a 
wide-spread and dang.n-ous conspiracy, which sought by 
force" and fear to suppress the expression of the popular 
will, and threatened, in the rage of party disappointment, 
in violation of plighted faith, and in defiance of law, to 
plunge the country into all the perils of anarchy and civil 
war. 

The discussion of this question is not wholly without 
practical interest. The peaceful inauguration of President 
Hayes was a narrow escape from a great danger, and its 
practical lesson to us is to provide, by necessary constitu- 
tional amendments, against the recurrence of such a peril. 
The unsatisfactory mode now provided for the election of 
the President and Vice-President of the United States is 
fully demonstrated. It does not at all fulfill the intention 
which created it, and has developed difficulties and dangers 
against which it provides no remedy or security. 

The plan of an amendment substantially like that pro- 
' posed and advocated by Senator Morton ought, Avithout 
further delay, to be perfected, proposed, and adopted. 
That plan abolishes the Electoral College as unnecessary ; 
while it preserves the Electoral votes of the several States, 
according to tho original law of representative proportion, 
but divides the vote of each State, so as to secure a safe 



[22] 

and more perfect popular representation. This will dimin- 
ish fraud, by lessening the temptation to fraud, and with 
means provided for contested Electoral returns, will, as 
nearly as can be, constitute a safeguard for the peaceful 
exercise, by free and fair elections, of the elective fran- 
chise. It will prevent the concentrated votes of large civic 
communities like that of such cities as JSTew York, from 
carrying with it the adverse majority of the remainder of 
the State, and thus unduly suppressing the legitimate in- 
fluence of large minorities. It will bring the election 
nearer to the people without in any wise weakening the 
relative influence and power of the States ; and will tend 
most powerfully to break up party divisions based on class 
or sectional lines. Coupled with a provision limiting the 
tenure of the Presidential office to a single term, we shall 
express in the terms of the Constitution, as Presidential 
qualitications, that disinterestedness, modesty, and whole- 
hearted zeal for the public good, which, as natural quali- 
ties, adorn and grace the present incumbent; and thus we 
shall vindicate the integrity of his election, by incorpo- 
rating his example into the fundamental law. 

THE SOUTHERN POLICY. 

The inauguration of President Hayes, preceded and sur- 
rounded by circumstances so anomalous and unprecedented, 
brought him almost immediately face to face with the deli- 
cate and difficult duty of dealing with what has been called 
the Southern question. 

The situation was this. Concurrently with the Presi- 
dential election. State elections had taken place in South 
Carolina and Louisiana, at which two sets of claimants for 
possession of the oflices of the State asserted their exclu- 
sive right, each claiming to be lawfully entitled. Cham- 
berlain and Hampton represented the rival claims in South 
Carolina; Packard and Nicholls were the contestants in 
Louisiana. Each attempted, as against the other, the ex- 
clusive exercise of the administration of the State govern- 
ment. The facts of both cases being substantially alike, 
and the same principles applicable equally to both, it will 



[23] 

be more satisfactory and convenient to consider by itself 
the case as it was presented in Louisiana. 

Troops of the United States in New Orleans, under prior 
orders, were instructed to prevent the threatened conflict. 
The Packard government occupied the State-house and 
had possession of the records and archives of certain 
oflices; hut its authority was recognized only in small 
areas in the State, outside of New Orleans, and in that city 
scarcely at all outside of the State-house. Each set of 
claimants had installed themselves in part, neither in whole. 
The legislative body itself divided. Part adhered to one 
government and part to another. NichoUs had a quorum 
of the Senate, having, certificates of election from the Re- 
turning Board, with those holding over; while a quorum 
of the House of Representatives, holding similar certifi- 
cates, adhered to Packard. There was, in fact, no single 
organization that constituted the government of Louisiana, 
as contemplated by its constitution and laws. 

President Grant luid instructed the officer in command 
of the Federal troops to use them so as to preserve the 
actual status as between the hostile parties,' and prevent 
collision. He subsequently modified the order so as to 
limit the duty of the military force to the preservation of 
the peace, leaving each government to exercise such func- 
tions as it could exert or acquire without a breach of the 
peace. He had declined from the beginning to recognize 
either as the rightful government of the State, or to em- 
X)loy force to establish and maintain its claims. 

When President Hayes came into ofiice, he continued in 
force the same orders. In due time,- he organized a Com- 
mission of gentlemen, of high character, to proceed to New 
Orleans in order personally to view the situation, and to 
report, not upon the abstract and technical title of either 
government, but whether such a condition of things ex- 
isted, as required the presence and intervention of the mil- 
itary force of the United States, and what would probably 
result from a withdrawal of the troops. It is perhaps true, 
and may be considered as having been made publicly 
known, that it was his intention to withdraw the troops, 



[24] 

as soon as it could be done, without danger to life and 
property and the public peace. Before the Commission 
had completed their observations, and, no doubt, under the 
influence of the belief that the United vStates would not 
enforce by arms the claims of the Packard government, 
the members of the Legislature, until that time adhering 
to that government, went over to the Il^icliolls' Legislature, 
and were admitted to seats as members of it. And then, 
that Legislature, in both branches, had a quorum of mem- 
bers, holding certificates of election from the Returning 
Board. The Packard government dissolved, and the troops 
were sent to their barracks. This is an outline of that 
course of events, which, so far as they were brought about 
by the action or failure to act of the Administration, has 
been called its Southern Policy. 

It may be assumed, for the purposes of this in([uiry, 
that the Packard was, as it claimed to be, the legitimate 
and lawfully elected government, Packard himself having 
been declared to have been elected by a legislature, which 
at the time, had, in each branch, a quorum of members, 
having prima facie title to seats, by virtue of certificates of 
election from the Returning Board, including Senators who 
held over. 

But it must also be assumed that the Packard govern- 
ment had no hold upon its constituency — that the wealth, 
propert}^, and physical and moral force of the community 
were arrayed against it and determined not to submit to its 
establishment — that in point of fact, it was not able to ex- 
ercise any of the functions of government in any etiective 
and substantial manner or to any useful extent — ihat noth- 
ing but the [tresence of the military power of the United 
States, acting under the orders, already referred to, secured 
to it, the semblance of even a formal existence — that, with- 
out that, it could not have organized, and in the event of 
its withdrawal would have been hopelessly dispersed, with- 
out the ability, to make even a show of resistance. In 
other words, that while the Packard government was the 
de jure or titular government, the Nicholls government was 
the government dc facLo. 



[25] 

I know it is claimed on behalf of the Packard govern- 
ment that if it had received the moral snpport of recogni- 
tion by the Federal Execntive and its military aid, it could 
have overthrown the Xicholls government ; and that, when 
that had been accomplished the troops of the United States 
could have been withdrawn, without danger to the peace 
of the State. This no doubt was the opinion of Mr. Pack- 
ard himself. If, however, the determination of the fact, in 
question, is material to the issue, the President of the 
United States had the right to form an opinion upon it for 
himself, indeed was bound so to do, for he is invested by 
the Constitution and laws with a discretion, in such cases, 
to be exercised upon his own judgment of the existence of 
the facts, in view of which he is to act. 

On the other hand, the reasons for the contrary opinion 
were of the gravest character, and preponderating, if not 
conclusive. The government represented by Mr. Packard, 
and that of which his was the successor, withont reflecting 
npon his personal character, was odious to the great body 
of the native white people of the State. They believed it 
to be oppressive and corrupt. To it, and its mal-adminis- 
tration, they attributed all the evils of their condition. 
They believed it to be a usurpation. The Kellogg govern- 
ment never, in their opinion, had been fairly elected. It 
owed its establishmentyaccording to their view, to fraud and 
force; and it had been submitted to, for the time, only in 
the hope of an early deliverance. The establishment of its 
successor, maintained in the same spirit, they regarded as 
their ruin. The idea of longer submission had become in- 
tolerable. They determined to resist it, by every means, to 
the last ; and although, they would not oppose arms to the 
military power of the United States, it was, I believe, their 
determination, to use such means, as would, they thought, 
secure to them, what they considered, a preferable alterna- 
tive, a military government by the army of the United 
States. 

It was the existence and strength of this sentiment that 
gave such power to the Democratic representatives who 
obstructed the progress, with a view to the defeat of the 



. [ 26 ] 

Presidential count. They put the case to their colleagues 
from the Southern States with great force and art. They 
said, you have nothing to expect from Republican successes, 
except a perpetuation of the wrongs and abuses of which 
you complain. Those you intend hereafter to resist, at all 
hazards, and to every extremity. If the Republican Na- 
tional Administration is prolonged, your struggle^will be 
hopeless, because it will be local, without allies, and illegal ; 
but join us in defeating the Presidential count. The area 
of the conflict then will be extended to the whole luition, 
and you will have the aid of the National Democratic 
party, iighting for its own success as well as yours, and 
thus you will enlist strength, which, if not sufficient to in- 
augurate Tilden, upon an election by the House of Repre- 
sentatives, will, at least, insure a new Presidential election, 
in which every conservative inlBuence will combine in your 
favor. 

To this was opposed the argument of honor and good 
faith,' implied in the passage of the Electoral Commission 
bill, as a compromise and an arbitration ; the evidence, 
from President Grant's course and declarations, that the 
arni}^ of the United States should not be used to decide 
questions of the State elections, and the title of conflicting 
State officers, and assurances that the Republican National 
Platform, as interpreted by General Hayes' letter of ac- 
ceptance, was a pledge, given in good faith, that would be 
sacredly performed, that no State government should be 
forced upon an unwilling people by Federal bayonets. 
And without this evidence and these assurances, it is my 
conviction that the peace of the Nation would have been 
seriously threatened, if not broken, in an attempt to pre- 
vent the orderly and peaceful process of declaring the 
election and completing the inauguration of the Republican 
President, and the country convulsed with an interregnum 
of doubtful constitutionality, and the tierce excitement of 
a new election, in which party passion would have been 
inflamed as it never had been before. 

But the principal, if not the only material question, re- 



[27] 

curs. It is simply this : Was the course and conduct of 
the President justified by the Constitution and tlie laws? 

The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States provides as foHows : 

" The United States shall guarantee to every State in 
this Union a republican form of government, and shall pro- 
tect each of them against invasion, and on a[)plication of 
the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature 
can not be convened), against domestic violence." 

For the purpose of carrying into effect this constitutional 
provision, Congress, by the act of February 28, 1795, pro- 
vided that, " In case of an insurrection in any State against 
the government thereof, it shall belaveful for the President 
of the United States, or of the Executive, when the Leg- 
islature can not be convened, to call forth such number of 
the militia of any other State or States as nuiy be applied 
for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress an insurrection." 
By subsequent legislation, the President was authorized, 
on the same conditions, to use, in lieu of the militia of any 
of the States, such part of the land or naval forces of the 
United States as he might deem expedient. 

In commenting upon and interpreting these provisions 
of the Constitution and law, the Supreme Court of the 
United States, in the well-known case of Luther v. Borden 
(7 Howard's Reports, 43), which grew out of the Dorr re- 
bellion in Rhode Island, laid down the doctrine of the fol- 
lowing extract : 

" By this act, the power of deciding whether the exi- 
gency had arisen upon which the government of the 
United States is bound to interfere, is given to the Presi- 
dent. He is to act upon the application of the Legislature, 
or of the Executive, and, consequently, he must determine 
w^hat body of men constitute the Legislature, and who is 
tVie Governor, before he can act. The fact that both par- 
ties claim the right to the government can not alter the 
case, for both can not be entitled to it. If there is an 
armed conflict, like the one of which we are speaking, it is 
a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be 
in insurrection against the lawful o-ovoniment; and the 



[28] 

President must of necessity decide which is the govern- 
ment and which party is unhawfull}^ arrayed against it, be- 
fore he can perform the dnty imposed upon him by the act 
of Congress." 

It will be observed that the discretion conceded here to 
the President is very wide and far-reaching. It is subordi- 
nate only to the authority of Congress, for it is said by the 
Su[)reme Court, in this same case : 

" Under this article of the Constitution it rests with 
Congress to decide what government is the established one 
in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each 
State a republican form of government. Congress must 
necessarily decide what government is established in the 
State before it can determine whether it is republican or 
not. And when the senators and representatives of a State 
are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority 
of the government under which they are appointed, as well 
as its republican character, is recognized by the proper con- 
stitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every 
other department of the government, and can not be 
questioned in a judicial tribunal." "" 

In the absence of any such previous decision b}' Congress, 
the President is compelled to exercise his own discretion un- 
der the law. That discretion, when exercised, can not be re- 
vised, reversed, or reviewed by any other body or tribunal. 
He is responsible for it, as he is for all other of his political 
conduct, to the two Houses of Congress, b}' the process of 
impeachment, and not otherwise. 

It must not be supposed, however, that this discretionary 
authority of the President is purely personal, arbitrary, and 
capricious, and subject to no rules for its guidance. Far 
from that. It is a legal and official discretion, exercised 
under the most solemn responsibilities, and to be exercised 
with careful scrutin}' of the circumstances wdiich invoke it, 
witli an anxious desire to promote only the public good, 
and in the spirit of loyalty to the sound principles of free 
government. 

The principles and rules which ought to govern a wise 
and patriotic executive in the discharge of the delicate 



[29] 

responsibilities of such a discretion are obvious, but not 
on that account unimportant, thougli more likely to bo 
overlooked. 

1. In tbe first place, this discretion must be exercised 
only within the limits and upon the conditions prescribed 
in express terms or by necessary implications in the Con- 
stitution and the law. Whatever reasons, and however 
urgent, may be assigned for intervention, they must find 
their warrant in tlie written law. It can lawfully occur, 
onl}' in the very manner and the very case described. And 
it is a matter, not without much significance, that the 
lang'uaw'e of the Constitution is much broader than that of 
the Act of Congress, to execute it. The 4th section of the 
4th article of the Constitution says that Congress shall, on 
the application of the legislature, or of the executive, when 
the legislature can not be convened, protect each State 
against domestic violence. This constitutional command is 
haidupon Congress, not upon the President. However im- 
perative upon Congress, it nevertheless leaves with Congress 
leo-islative discretion as to what shall constitute the domestic 
violence against which it is bound by law to protect each 
State, and in what cases, and in what manner, that pro- 
tection shall be aftbrded. The President has no such dis- 
cretion. He is bound by the Act of Congress, which, in 
this respect, for him, has conclusively defined the terms of 
the Constitution. 

Congress may not have exhausted all its legislative author- 
ity in the laws it has passed. There may be cases of domestic 
violence in a State, against which protection ought, within 
the purview of the Constitution, to be furnished. But that 
duty rests upon Congress, and upon Congress alone. The 
President is strictly limited by the law, as actually in force, 
and can not act in cases not contemplated by it, although 
within the language of the Constitution. And the law 
limits the action of the President to a single case of do- 
mestic violence. Unless it amounts to a case of an insur- 
rection, no matter how distinctly otherwise it may be a case 
of domestic violence, the President has no authority of law 
for his intervention. It is only in the one instance of '\an 



[30] 

insurrection in any State against the government thereof," that 
the law confers upon him power to act for the purpose of 
protecting the State against domestic violence, by suppress- 
ing such insurrection. 

2. In the second place, the legal discretion vested in the 
President by the Act of Congress is a discretion to act upon 
the contingency and the conditions prescribed, if he sees 
iit ; but also, 7iot to act at all, if he so determine. The lan- 
guage of the law is, " it shall be lawful for the President,'" 
etc. It is not, " it shall be the duty of the Fresident," etc. 
It does not impose a mere ministerial and positive obliga- 
tion. He is not oidy made the judge of who is the Gover- 
nor, and what body of men constitute the Legislature, and 
of the sufficiency of the number of troops required, and 
whether the fact of an insurrection exists ; but also whether, 
taking all the circumstances into consideration, it is wise 
and expedient, and for the public good, for him to respond 
to the requisition. He may not think military intervention 
necessary. He may think the government of the State 
sufficiently strong to protect itself. He may think the in- 
surrection temporary and ephemeral, that will, of itself, 
languish and die out. On the other hand, he may think 
intervention unavailing. The insurrection may already 
have gone so far as to have become an accomplished fact. 
It may have become successful revolution. It may have 
completely overthrown the old and previously established 
government, and firmly planted another in its stead. The 
alleged insurrection may, in fact, be nothing but a violent 
and unavailing effort of the old order to restore its power 
and authority by displacing that which, although new and 
revolutionary, has nevertheless become fixed and accepted. 
He may, therefore, conclude that the insurrection, if such 
it can be called, ought not to be suppressed ; but that, 
having succeeded, for the sake of the public peace and 
tranquillity, it ought not to be disturbed by force. The 
whole question, therefore, whether there shall be any in- 
tervention at all, supposing every contingency of the law 
to have happened, and every condition fulfilled, is a ques- 
tion of policy and public expediency, remitted for decision 



[31] 

to the sound discretion of the President, to be exercised by 
him with sole reference to the probable good or ill conse- 
quences of acting or refusing to act. 

3. In the third place, the President ought not to exer- 
cise his discretion affirmatively in favor of an intervention 
in a doubtful case. The employment of the military force 
ought not to be an ordinary function of civil government 
in its internal administration. There is an American pre- 
judice against standing armies, which ought not to be dis- 
couraged — Inter leges, arma silent. Force, it is true, lies 
couched behind all law; but it is best that it should remain 
hid, and not displayed. Kesort to armed powder should be 
a refuge only in time of imminent and extreme danger, 
and should never be permitted to supersede, except in cases 
of absolute necessity, the peaceful methods of legal pro- 
cess, or the still more wholesome and efficacious restraints 
of a resolute })ublic opinion. Any government, whatever 
its form, which depends habitually, in the course of its or- 
dinary administration, upon its military power, has already 
ceased to be free ; and a people, however brave and high- 
spirited, that are obliged to live in the shadow of its con- 
stant menace, will become unlit for and inca})able of the 
duties and responsibilities of citizenship. The republican 
institutions, of which w^e are justly proud, can be main- 
tained only by the voluntary and intelligent co-operation 
of a free and united people, who feel and act as though, 
notwnthstanding the diversity of individual character and 
interests, they are bound together as one homogeneous and 
indivisible commonwealth, instinct with the consciousness 
of a conH]]on national life and destiny. I would not un- 
derestimate the spirit and service of our gallant little army. 
It protects, with many sacrifices, our frontier settlements 
against the warfare of the savage, and is the nucleus which, 
in time of public peril, gathers and organizes and inspires 
the martial^pirit of the people. But the army is for war; 
in time of peace, let us look only to the coercion of the law 
and the moral support of a vigorous public opinion to hold 
in subjection all the elements of disorder. This country 
can not be governed by bayonets ; it can be governed only 



[32] 

by ideas. Let us not, eveuiu the presence of new and un- 
expected and dangerous assaults upon the order and insti- 
tutions of society, be carried away from our safe and accus- 
tomed moorings, lest we drift into dangerous currents and 
upon fatal rocks. Let us beware, lest expedients, intro- 
duced as experiments and exceptions, are drawn into prece- 
dents against the regular course of constitutional life; lest, 
in place of a tonic, we inject a poison into the veins and 
arteries of the body politic. 

In reference to the application of this rule, in regulating 
the discretion of the President, in the use of troops to sup- 
press insurrection in a State, the language of Mr. Caleb 
Gushing, when Attorney-General, in his opinion to the 
President, in the case of the Vigilance Committee of San 
Francisco, is strong but just. He says : 

" This, however, it seems safe to say, that the application 
of this high power of the President to cases of doubtful 
legal condition ought to be reserved for circumstances of 
the most exigent emergency; such as, for instance, a case 
of indisputable bellum flagrans in a given State, and in 
which all the constitutional power of the State shall have 
been exerted in vain to prevent or suppress domestic war, 
and in which also imminent or extreme public disaster can 
be airested only by such interposition of the Federal gov- 
ernment." (8 Attorney-General's Op. 14.) 

4. But probably the most important rule for the regula- 
tion of this discretion of the President is deduced from its 
very nature, as being political and not judicial. If it were 
judicial in its nature, then it would necessarily follow that 
the question for decision would have to be examined and 
tried according to the course of judicial procedure ; by the 
examination of witnesses, the production of proofs, trial 
bj' jury, and review by judicial tribunals. In the language 
of the Supreme Court in the case already quoted {Luther 
V. Borden), " If the judicial power extends so fiir, the guar- 
antee contained in the Constitution of the United States is 
a guarantee of anarchy and not of order." 

The discretion vested in the President, then, is apolitical 
power, not to be exercised judicially, for the purpose of 



[33] 

trying and establislnng legal rights, but proceeding only on 
grounds of policy and wise expediency. In deciding the 
question, so far as it is necessary for him to decide it, in 
the exercise of his discretion to use military force in the 
suppression of insurrection, it is no part of his duty to in- 
quire into the title of either contesting government. The 
point of investigation and interest is, not where is the 
right, having reference to the regularity and legalitj^ of its 
title, but what is the fact — wliich is the actual and estab- 
lished government, in possession of power, whose authority 
is recognized by the community, and which is able to 
maintain its existence iirmly and administer the functions 
of government eifectually. The Supreme Court of the 
United States has affirmed this principle. In the case al- 
ready quoted (Luther v, Borden), it says : 

" In the case of foreign nations, the government acknowl- 
edged by the President is always recognized in the courts 
of justice. And this principle has been applied by the act 
of Congress to the sovereign States of the Union." And 
Mr. Justice Woodbury, in his dissenting opinion in that 
case, said : " The doctrines laid down in Palmer's case are 
as directly applicable to this, in the event of two contend- 
ing parties in arms in a domestic war, as in a foreign. If 
one is recognized by the Executive or Legislature of the 
Union as the de facto government, the judiciary can only 
conform to that political decision. . . . The same rule has 
been applied by this Court in case of a contest as to which 
is the true constitution between two, or which possesses the 
true legislative power in, one of our own States — those cit- 
izens acting under the new, which is objected to as irregu- 
larly made, or those under the old territorial government 
therein." 

It is further to be remarked that the principal ciuestion for 
the Presidential decision is simply whether, under all the 
circumstances, he shall employ the military forces of the 
United States as requested. The question which of two 
rivals is the lawful government is merely incidental to that, 
and only to be decided as necessary to the determination 
of the other. It is only as and when he determines to in- 



[34] 

tervene with the military arm that he decides any question 
as to the claims of the parties. If he decides not to in- 
tervene, he decides nothing else. Above all, the question, 
which is the rightful government, can never be submitted 
to him separately for decision. That would be to make 
him arbiter or judge, and the constitution has not, in such 
case, made him a divider of the inheritance between liti- 
gants. 

Guided by these principles in the exercise of his lawful 
discretion, influenced by considerations of what seemed 
to him the wisest public policy, President Hayes, after a 
careful survey of the actual condition of public afl:airs in 
Louisiana, resolved not to use the army of the United 
States to overthrow the Nicholls government, and to es- 
tablish and maintain the Packard goverimient. 

It is this policy that is indorsed by the Kepublican party 
of Ohio, when, in their recent State Convention at Cleve- 
land, they — 

"■Resolved, That the Eepublicans of Ohio reatflrm their 
unfaltering coniidence in Rutherford B. Hayes as a states- 
pian, patriot, and Republican, and cordially approve and 
support his efforts for the pacification of the country," etc. 

It has commanded the congratulations and extorted the 
praise of our political opponents, although it has taken 
away the largest part of their party capital. It has been 
received and accepted with general satisfaction and a sense 
of relief from embittered political and sectional agitations 
by the people generally. It has given peace and tranquillity 
and revived hope to the South. The great body of the 
people in South Carolina and Louisiana, of all parties, con- 
ditions, and races, have not only acquiesced in it, but rec- 
ognize it as the dawn of an era of peace, good will, public 
and private prosperity, and good government. It has re- 
moved prejudices, conciliated those who were alienated, 
tended to heal the breaches of the civil war, aroused and 
revived a growing and healthy sentiment of nationality, 
where before it was weak. It has imposed upon the gov- 
erning forces of public opinion and administration in the 
reconstructed States a new and deeper sense of political re- 



[35] 

sponsibility, and brought them under voluntary vows to 
respect and enforce the guarantees of tlie amended Consti- 
tution in support of the equal rights and franchises of the 
emancipated and colored race. So far, at least, it has 
wrought good, and not evil. If the people of South Caro- 
lina and Louisiana — those who have heretofore voted with 
the Republican party, and expect to do so hereafter in- 
cluded — more interested in this settlement than any and 
all others, are satisfied, who has a right to complain ? 

Nevertheless, there are others who complain and criti- 
cise ; and as they are of that household of political faith 
W'hose principles of public policy the I'resident was chosen 
to carry into the administration of the National Govern- 
ment, their complaints and criticisms are entitled to re- 
spectful consideration, and such answer as can justly be 
made. 

It is objected that the President, in adopting the course 
pursued, failed in his constitutional and legal duty. This 
is, indeed, a serious charge. If made good, it leaves him 
without defense, but if repelled, it would seem that noth- 
ing else could be alleged ; for if it can be shown that he per- 
formed his whole legal duty, certainly nothing more can be 
required. 

The objection assumes that the Packard government was 
the government of Louisiana, entitled to be recognized as 
such ; that the Nicholls government and its supporters con- 
stituted an insurrection against it ; that on the requisition 
of the former he was imperatively bound to eniplo}' the 
army of the United States in its support by suppressing 
and dispersing the latter, or that if he had any lawful dis- 
cretion, considerations of wise public policy demanded that 
he should so act. 

The existence and character of such discretion, together, 
with the rules for its just guidance, have already been 
pointed out; and their statement goes far to furnish the 
refutation of the objections made. 

But there are numerous additional considerations that 
strengthen and confirm their effect, 

In the first place, instead qf being a conclusive circum' 



[36] 

stance in determining the question that Packard was duly 
and rightfully elected, as has been admitted, it is entirely 
foreign to the inquiry, and, as the case stood, immaterial. 
The fact to be ascertained was, what Avas the government 
of Louisiana — there were two claimants — not which was 
the government that had been lawfully chosen, but wliich 
was the actual government of the State? The title of 
Packard may have been perfect ; but it was a mere paper 
title. The possession of Nicholls was complete. With 
what show of reason can a government, formal in its or- 
ganization, complete in its possession, asserting its author- 
ity under color of right, and claiming title, exercising all 
the functions of regular administration according to the 
course of peaceful procedure, passing laws, administering 
justice, levying and collecting taxes, firmly established and 
cheerfully obeyed by the people, almost unanimously — how, 
I say, can such a government be called an insurrection ? 
And, on the other hand, how can that be called the actual 
and lawful government of a State, which consists of a Gov- 
ernor, and State officers, and a legislative body, shut up 
within the walls of a single building, protected there from 
capture by the troops of the Federal Government, and 
capable of exercising none of the authority of law, or com- 
manding the obedience of a constituency ? As well might 
Henri of Bourbon, or the Count of Paris, or the Prince 
Imperial, claim that Marshal MclNIahon and the French 
people were. in a state of insurrection against their several 
legitimate and rightful governments! 

The fact is too palpable to be further dwelt upon, that 
there was no case under the law of an insurrection against 
the government the State. Of this, the demonstration was 
complete when the adherents of the Packard government 
realized the President's determination not to use military 
force to assert their title. The whole appearance of any 
such government immediately dissolved into thin air and 
nothingness. 

It may be replied that this view is based on the maxim 
that " might makes right," ignores the rights of majorities, 
and is fatal to the idea of republican government. But 



[37] 

this is not at all to the point. The question relates to the 
duty of the President under a statute, precise and detinitc 
in its terms ; and the argument must not wander from the 
case. Under this statute, tlie Tresident is not charged 
with the duty of guaranteeing the republican character of 
the government of a State. That is a separate duty, and 
belongs to Congress alone. 

The same objection is turned into an argum.entum ad 
hominem, and with a popular and plausible turn it is alleged 
that, as Packard received a larger majority, even of the 
popular vote, than was given to the Republican electors, 
the President was estopped to deny the validity of Pack- 
ard's claim, and by refusing to recognize and maintain it, 
has impeached his own title as President. But the fallacy 
of this pretension has been already exposed. The argu- 
ment in defense of the President's course and decision pro- 
ceeds on the assumption that Packard received a majority 
of votes and was duly elected, by showing that notwith- 
standing that, the statutory case, in which alone the Pres- 
ident could intervene, did not^xist. The question of Pack- 
ard's election was never before the President for decision ; 
and, in"point of fact, he never passed upon it. 

But the President is arraigned for having a policy on 
this subject at all, that could be called presidential ; and a 
policy, appropriately so described, is stigmatized as an 
anomaly and oifense— as savoring of bad faith— as having 
a native and historical odor of treachery and intrigue. 
And it is distinctly charged as being in violation of the 
pledges given to the l^ational Republican party, by the ac- 
ceptance of its nomination and its platform, on the faith of 
which the President received its political support. The 
specification under this head is, that he has violated that 
section of the Republican platform which reads as follows: 
" The permanent pacification of the Southern section of 
the Union and the complete protection of all its citizens in 
the free enjoyment of all their rights, are duties to which 
the Republican party stands sacredly pledged. The power 
to provide for the enforcement of the principles embodied 
in the recent constitutional amendments is vested by those 



[38] 

amendments in the Congress of the United States, and we 
declare it to he the solemn ohligation of the Government 
to put into immediate and vigorous exercise all its constitu- 
tional powers for removing any just causes of discontent on 
the part of any class, and for securing to every American 
citizen complete liberty and exact equality in the exercisp 
of all civil, political, and public rights. To this end, we 
imperatively demand a Congress and a Chief Executive 
whose courage and lidelity shall not falter until the results 
are placed beyond dispute or recall." 

It is altogether unreasonable to denounce the President 
for having a policy of his own, when the matter in hand is 
a question of the pro})er exercise of legal discretion vested 
in the Executive alone. He is compelled to act, in his 
official character, under the sanction and responsibility of 
his oath of otfice, and with the aid of his constitutional 
advisers, adopt the course that seems to him right and wise. 
Whatever policy he pursues becomes, by the fact of his pur- 
suing it, the Presidential policy. It is hardly worth wliile 
to quarrel with a name. 

But as to the substance of the charge, I venture to say 
that it will puzzle the ingenuity of the most astute fault- 
iinder, to point out wherein the measures of the President, 
now in question, violate the pledges of the Republican plat- 
form. Certainly he has not failed in his ettbrts to secure 
"the permanent pacification of the Southern section of the 
Union," nor in putting forth his " constitutional powers 
for removing just causes of discontent on the part of any 
class ;" and as to " the complete protection of all its citizens 
in the free enjoyment of all their rights," and the enforce- 
ment of the principles of the constitutional amendments, 
in what has he omitted any thing he ought or could have 
done ? If he has not kept these Republican pledges, it is 
because he has acted in contravention of the amendments 
of the Constitution ; and it would be more to the purpose 
to charge him with a violation of his duty to the Constitu- 
tion than of the promises of his party. But what have 
these amendments to do with the question of recognizing 
and sustaining the Packard government by military force 



[ 39 ] 

in Louisiana ? The accusation needs only to be put in form 
to reduce it to absurdity. If the maintenance by force of 
Republican party governments in the reconstructed States 
is a necessary means to the enforcement of the rights guar- 
anteed by the amendments to the Constitution, then the 
duty to uphold them is an imperative and constitutional 
necessity, absolute in its obligation, and not at all depend- 
ent on the fact of their being duly and lawfully elected. To 
enforce the Constitution must be accomplished without 
reference to the consent of any part of the people. Hence 
it would be a duty to impose upon these States by force 
the particular governments which, by the supposition, are 
constitutionally necessary for the execution of the provi- 
sions of the Constitution. 

It is, on the other hand, quite evident that the enforce- 
ment of the constitutional amendments has no connection 
whatever with the question in debate. The guarantees 
contained in those provisions rest for their enforcement 
upon laws passed or to be passed by Congress. Those laws 
operate' upon individual citizens and not upon State gov- 
ernments. They are to be executed by civil process, and 
not by military force, except where the latter is lawfully 
called in aid to enforce the precepts of courts of justice. 
The President, as Chief Executive, is charged, under the 
Constitution, to see that all these laws be faithfully exe- 
cuted. There is no shadow of reason from any experience 
of the past to doubt that he will, in the least degree, shrink 
from the performance of this duty whenever called to its 
performance. Fortunately, no occasion has yet arisen 
which has made necessary any such action on his part. 
There are some who, in their unreasoning opposition, have 
cited the shocking murder of the Chisholms, in Mississippi, 
as though the President were in some way responsible for 
its occurrence or bound to punish it. This is the incapable 
logic of mere prejudice. It would be quite as reasonable 
to charge him with responsibility for every murder and 
mob throughout the country. 

But in trying the President on the charge of infidelity 
to his party princii)les and pledges, his letter accepting the 



[40] 

Kepiiblican nomination must not be overlooked ; for he 
was supported and elected quite as much upon its terms as 
by reason of anything in the platform. This is specially 
pertinent to the present discussion, because his letter covers 
its ground, while the platform does not touch it. His lan- 
guage on this topic is memorable. He said : 

"The resolution of the Convention on the subject of the 
permanent pacification of the country and the complete 
protection of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of their 
constitutional rights, is timely and of great importance. 
The condition of the Southern States attracts the attention 
and commands the sympathy of the people of the whole 
Union. In their progressive recovery from the effects of 
the war, their first necessity is an intelligent and honest admin- 
istration of government, which shall protect all classes of 
citizens in all their political and private rights. What the 
South most needs is peace, and peace depends upon the su- 
premacy of law. There can be no enduring peace if the 
constitutional rights of any portion of the people are habit- 
ually disregarded. A division of political parties' resting 
merely upon the distinction of race, or upon sectional lines, is 
always unfortunate and may be disastrous. The welfare of 
the South, alike with that of every other part of tlie coun- 
try, depends upon the attractions it can offer to labor, to 
immigration, and to capital. But laborers will not go, and 
capital will not be ventured, where the Constitution and 
the law are set at detiance, and distraction, apprehension, 
and alarm take the place of peace-loving and law-abiding 
social life. All parts of the Constitution are sacred, and 
must be sacredly observed ; the parts that are new, no less 
than the parts that are old. The moral and material pros- 
perity of the Southern States can be most effectually ad- 
vanced by a hearty and generous recognition of the rights 
of all by all — a recognition without reserve or exception. 
With such a recognition fully accorded, it unll be p>ractical to 
Ijromote, l>y the influence of all the legitimate agencies of the 
general gorernment, the efforts of the p>eople of those States to 
obtain for themselves the blessings of honest and capable local 
government. If elected, 1 shall consider it not only my duty. 



[ 41 ] 

hut it idll he 7ny ardent desire, to lahor for the attainment of 
this end. Let me assure m}^ countrymen of the Soutliern 
States that if I should he charged with tlie duty of organ- 
izing an administration, it Avill he one which will regard 
and cherish tlieir trnest interests — the interests of the white 
and the colored people, both and equally, and which will 
flit forth its best efforts in behalf of a civil policy which will 
icipe outforecer the distinction between North and South in our 
common country." 

!N"o one, in the light of the circumstances of the situation, 
can fail to understand and appreciate the force and mean- 
ing of these declarations. The language can neither be 
misunderstood nor perverted, and it is not necessary to 
look between the lines for a key to their translation. So 
far from being chargeable with unfaithfulness to his- 
pledges as a candidate, the real grievance, which for shame 
hides itself, but simulates the form of indignation at the 
violation of plighted faith, is that Gen. Hayes meant what 
he said, and has been true to his word ; that, as President, 
he has redeemed the promises which, as candidate, he made, 
not merely to his supporters, but to the country. He has 
honorably fulfilled the pledges of his party fealty. He 
has done what he could to secure to the people of the South- 
ern States an intelligent and honest administration of govern- 
ment. He has done what he could to break up the division 
of political parties resting merely upon the distinctions of race 
or upon sectional lines ; he has done what he could to secure, 
by the pledged and promised voluntary co-operation of the 
whole community, given by public and representative men, 
a recognition of the rights of all, by all ; he has done what 
he could, on the basis of that recognition, practically to 
promote, by the influence of all the legitimate agencies of 
the general government, the efforts of the people of those 
States to obtain for themselves the blessings of honest and 
capable local government; he has done what he could, by 
putting forth his best efforts in behalf of a civil policy 
which will wipe out forever the distinction between North 
and South in our common country. Whoever else may 
fail hereafter in keeping promises and redeeming pledges, 



[42] 

at least the conscience of the President is clear. He has 
done exactly what, believing it to be his duty, he pledged 
himself to do. 

But it is said that the President owed it, as a debt of 
personal and political gratitude to Mr. Packard and the 
Republicans of Louisiana to maintain his government. 
Strange idea, this, of political and official obligation ! 
"What moral basis is there for such a feeling? It proceeds 
npon the assumption that party interests are paramount to 
patriotic duties — that to pay for political and party service 
is a higher obligation than to obey the Constitution — that 
a President may exchange, as an equivalent, the peace and 
prosperity of a whole community for aid rendered in his 
election by his adherents. This might have answered in 
the days of robber barons in the feudal ages, but now he 
serves his party best who best serves his country. 

Neither is it true, in any sense, that the President has be- 
trayed the Republican party of the Southern States into 
the hands of its political enemies, or deserted the just de- 
fense of the political and personal rights of any of their 
citizens. Most assuredly such was not the intent of his 
policy ; neither do I believe such will be its effect. 

It may be that, for a time, the Republican party in those 
States will be disheartened and disorganized by its failure 
to maintain its power in the government of the State ; but 
tliere is no reason to believe that that disorganization will 
result in its permanent dissolution. If it does, it simply 
proves its own want of an inherent vitalizing force. Ac- 
tivity that can be kept in motion only by galvanic force, is 
not life, but only a ghastly semblance of it. A party 
organization that falls to pieces and dissolves immediately 
on a failure to get or keep possession of office, is not a 
wholesome organization, and deserves to die. It lives only 
by the cohesive power of public plunder. 

I think better of the Republican party in the Southern 
States. I see no reason why it should not revive, even 
Phoonix-like, out of its own ashes, with stronger pinions 
and loftier flight. 

The future of political parties in the United States is, of 



[43] 

course, not matter of knowledge, bnt of speculation. We 
can only conjecture the probable course of events, based 
on our past experience and what we have learned from his- 
tory and consciousness of the springs and motives of human 
action. The predictions of the wisest, as well as the most 
fearful, may come to naught; and yet, because we have no 
absolute certainty of the stability of nature, no man is con- 
sidered a fool, who, seeing the sun sink into the night, ven- 
tures the reassuring prophecy that it will rise and bring 
back the day again on the morrow. So, while parties rise 
and fall, appear and disappear, organize and dissolve, put 
away old names and put on new, take up new questions 
and issues and change sides on old ones, still we shall find 
in this, as the necessity of all free countries^ political sen- 
timent dividing the people, at least, into two great party 
divisions. And so, we have the right to conclude, it will 
continue to be, even as it is in our days, and was in the 
days of our fathers. 

That the line of division will not be sectional, is certainly 
greatly to be desired ; and I think there is good reason to 
hope it will not be so. As long as slavery existed, sectional 
parties were inevitable. As the South became unanimous 
in the assertion of its claims, the North grew to be unanim- 
ous in its opposition. The conflict, in the language of Mr. 
Seward, was irrepressible; and it was impossible, as Mr. 
Lincoln clearly announced, for the States long to maintain 
a Union, half slave and half free. They would have to be 
either all slave or all free. But the abolition of slavery 
has removed the only ground of sectional politics. Some 
of the etiects of the institution still remain, and time alone 
will suflice entirely to remove them. But there is nothing 
in the character of the people that necessarily creates sec- 
tional political differences. The remembrances of civil 
w^ar, so far as they recall any of its hostilities, are fading 
under the softening and charity-begetting influence of time, 
and the friendly intercourse of society and business. There 
doubtless are and will be some measures and questions, 
crrowing out of the events of the Rebellion, that may for a 
time bind together politically the people of the South ; but 



[44] 

they must be met, if presented, upon their merits, and 
decided upon principle; and will not form, in my judgment, 
the source of permanent or dangerous political agitation. 
The color line will be effaced in the politics of the South ; 
and the same national questions that divide opinion in the 
North, will create parties there. Questions of state policy 
and local administration will constantly arise, and seeking 
the means of settlement in party debates, will tend further 
to develop the spirit of partj^ rivalry. Personal ambitions 
will promote the irresistible tendency; and we shall not 
have to wait for many elections, before we shall see the 
contention of party politics establishing its array of partisans 
in every State, and developing national parties, with their 
allied State organizations, complete and homogeneous, 
covering the whole Held of political discussion, irrespective 
of State lines. The colored freedman, as an irritating cause 
of sectional ditference, will then have disappeared from his 
abnormal position in politics and taken his true though 
less conspicuous place. The divisions of the white man 
will be his opportunity. His vote, instead of being repelled, 
will be solicited by opposing parties, who will, at least 
each for its own sake, unite in protecting him. His instinct 
at tirst will guide him in the exercise of his franchise by 
the sense of his immediate and personal interest. His ex- 
perience of party management will be the means of his 
political education, and enable him to take such part in 
political movements as he may develope capacity to fill. 
At least his personal and political rights will be secured, 
and with them the enactment and administration of laws 
which will protect him in the just fruits of his labor, and 
give him that social and political status to which he shall 
be entitled. Thus will he be enabled to w^ork out his owu 
salvation, if need be, with fear and trembling, but without 
doubt as to its accomplishment ; and all the better for him 
that it will be his own work. The law struck otf the 
shackles of his bondage and he ceased to be a slave ; it con- 
ferred upon him the right to vote, and he became a citizen ; 
but to be a man, in the highest and best sense — a man 
among men — tJiat nmst be wrought in him, and not iq')on 



[45] 

him. It is in his case, as in the case of all other races and 
individuals, the work of general intellectual and moral 
forces building up the fabric of in(U^[)endent and self-rely- 
ing character. This is the essential condition, as well as 
tiie characteristic function, of political self-government. 

Taking the view which I have presented of the consti- 
tutional and legal grounds of the President's course, and. 
the probable effects of his policy, I defend his Southern 
policy, not because it was inevitable, but because it was 
right. Nor do I deem it necessary to apologize for him by 
shifting the responsibility upon his distinguished predeces- 
sor. I do not believe that President Grant ought to have 
recognized and sustained by force the claims of Packard, 
while the decision of the Congress, by means of the Electoral 
Commission, upon the questions arising upon the Louisiana 
vote, was in suspense. And after that decision was made, 
I do not think he is to be censured for remitting the ques- 
tion of future executive action to his successor. It is 
enough to know that President Grant would have done 
what President Hayes did, but neither is responsible for 
what the other did or omitted. For one, I am happy to 
believe that both were right, and are alike entitled to the 
plaudit of — Well done, good and faithful servants. That 
such will be the ultimate verdict of the American people 
and of history, I have no doubt. 

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

The fifth article of the declaration of principles, an- 
nounced by the National Republican Convention, at Cin- 
cinnati, in 1876, formally committed the Pepublican party 
to a Reform of the Civil Service. It is as follows : 

'■'■Fifth. Under the Constitution, the President and heads 
of departments are to make nominations for office, the 
Senate is to advise and consent to appointments, and the 
House of Representatives is to accuse and prosecute faith- 
less officers. The best interest of the public service de- 
mands that these distinctions be respected ; that Senators 
and Representatives, who may be judges and accusers, 
should not dictate appointment to office. The invariable 



[46] 

rale in appointments should have reference to the honesty, 
fidelit}-, and capacit}^ of the appointees, giving to the party 
in power their places where harmony and vigor of admin- 
istration require its policy to he represented, but permitting 
all others to he tilled by persons selected with sole reference 
to the efficiency of the puhlic service and the right of all 
citizens to share in the honor of rendering faithful service 
to the country." 

The principles distinctly announced in this formula of 
doctrine may be separately stated as follows : 

1. That tlie spirit of the Constitution requires that, in 
nominations to office, the Executive Department should 
act independently of Senators and Representatives ; and 
that the interests of the service require this independence 
to be protected against the dictation of members of Con- 
gress. 

2. That while honesty, fidelity, and capacity should be 
necessary qualilications in all cases, political considerations 
should be regarded in appointments to offices whose ad- 
ministration is atfected hy the decision of political ques- 
tions. 

3. That appointments to other offices should be made 
solely on the basis of efficiency in the service, and should 
be non-partisan in their character. 

General Hayes, in his letter of acceptance, commented at 
some leno^th on this declaration. He said : 

" The lifth resolution adopted by the Convention is of 
paramount interest. More than forty years ago, a system 
of making appointments to office grew up, based on the 
maxim, ' To the victors belong the spoils.' The old rule, 
the true rule, that honesty, capacity, and fidelity constitute 
the only real qualiiicatiou for office, and that there is no 
other claim, gave place to the idea that party services were 
to be chiefly considered. All parties, in practice, have 
adopted this system. It has been essentially modified since 
its first introduction. It has not, however, been improved. 
At first, the President, either directly or through the heads 
of departments, made all the appointments, but gradually 
the appointing power, in many cases, passed into the con- 



trol of members of Congress. The offices, in these cases, 
have become, not merely rewards for party services, but re- 
wards for services to party leaders. This system destroys 
the inde[iendence of the separate departments of the gov- 
ernment. It tends directly to extravagance and ofKcial in- 
capacity. It is a temptation to dishonesty, it hinders and 
impairs that careful supervision and strict accountabilit}' 
by which alone faithful and efficient public service can be 
secured. It obstructs the prompt removal and sure pun- 
ishment of the unworthy. In every way it degrades the 
civil service and the character of the goverimient. It is 
felt, I am confident, by a large majority of the members of 
Congress to be an intolerable burden and an unwarrantable 
hindrance to the proper discharge of their legitimate duties. 
It ought to be abolished. The reform should be thorough, 
radical, and complete. We should return to the principles 
and practice of the founders of the government, supplying 
by legislation, when needed, that which was formerly the 
established custom. They neither expected nor desired 
from the public officer any partisan service. The}' meant 
that public officers should owe their whole services to the 
government and to the people. They meant that the officer 
should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal char- 
acter remained untarnished and the performance of his 
duties satisfactory. If elected, I shall conduct the admin- 
istration of the government upon these principles, and all 
the constitutional powers vested in the Executive will be 
employed to establish this reform." 

It is impossible to add to the force of this exposure of 
the evil to be remedied an J to the clearness of the explan- 
ation of the nature of the remedy. The success of any 
attempt to carry into effect the principles of this i-eform 
will depend much upon the character of the person who, at 
the time, wields the executive power, but it is manifest that 
the preliminary step toward its introduction is to affix to 
the tenure of the Presidential office the disability of a re- 
election, in order to remove, not only all temptation to 
abuse its patronage for his personal ends, but, what is almost 
of e(pial importance, to take away the very suspicion of it. 



[48] . 

Accordingly, with a true insight into the inherent difficulty 
of the undertaking, General Hayes, in his letter accepting 
the nomination to the Presidency, as a necessary part of 
the reform to which he was pledged, took on himself the 
voluntary vow of ineligibility. He said : 

" The declaration of principles by the Cincinnati Con- 
vention makes no announcement, in form, of a single 
Presidential terra. I do not assume to add to that declar- 
ation ; but, believing that the restoration of the Civil Ser- 
vice to the system established by Washington and followed 
by the early Presidents, can be best accomplished by an 
Executive who is under no temptation to use the patronage 
of his office to promote his own re-election, I desire to per- 
form what I regard as a duty in stating my inflexible pur- 
pose, if elected, not to be a candidate for election to a 
second term." 

The iirst effective step, in my opinion, in a permanent 
Civil Service reform, is to incorporate that resolution into 
a Constitutional amendment, limiting the tenure of the 
Presidential office to a single term. Without that we shall 
have no guarantee of disinterestedness in the very head of 
the Civil Service ; and the example of seliish abuse of the 
public trust, in that high and conspicuous place, will sooner 
or later infect every department and branch. The removal 
of the temptation destroys every motive of ambition except 
to promote the public good, and inspires every official in- 
fluence with the purit}' of its source. 

By way of inaugurating this reform, the President has 
issued an executive order, in the following terms : 

" No officer should be required or permitted to take part 
in the management of political organizations, caucuses, 
conventions, or election campaigns. Their right to vote 
and to express their views on public questions, either orally 
or through the press, is not denied, provided it does not 
interfere with the discharge of their official duties. Is"o as- 
sessment for political purposes on officers or subordinates 
should be allowed." The rule is made applicable to every 
department of the Civil Service, and every officer of the 



[49] 

general government is expected to conform liis conduct to 
its requirements. 

An innovation, so great as this, npoii tlie long continued 
customs of party management, it may be expected, will be 
received at first,.not withont doubt and misgiving, as to 
its practicability and its beneficial results. Many no doiibt 
regard the whole scheme as a Quixotic attempt to correct 
an imaginary evil ; while others look upon it as impracti- 
cable and mischievous. It is said that it is useless to at- 
tempt, in this way, to divorce the actual administration of 
the government from active alliance with the support and 
direction of party politics ; and that to do so, is contrary to 
the spirit of our political institutions, and subversive of 
popular government through the agency of parties. 

But a moment's reflection, it seems to me, suffices to 
show that this can not be so. If the possession of ofiice 
and the use and influence of oflicial patronage is necessary 
to the mainteuance of party organizations, what sustains 
the party in opposition ? It may be answered, in that case, 
not the present, but the hope of future enjoyment keeps 
the opposition alive. This, under our system, no doubt, is 
the source of much political activity and strife, but it is 
certainly not complimentary to the public spirit, intelli- 
gence, and patriotism of the body of the people, to assume 
that their party zeal is simply a hungry hunt for office. 
If such w^ere the fact, it would only be the stronger proof 
of the necessity of elevating and purifying our politics. 

It is because the proper work of the people has so loiig 
been done for them by their self-constituted leaders that it 
seems to be thought they either never had or have lost the 
faculty of acting for themselves. A limb grows numb for 
want of use, and we say we can not use it because it is 
numb. When the idea was first broached of severing the 
State from the support of the Church, it was believed by 
many good people that religion would decay if left to the 
voluntary support of its votaries. The result showed that, 
when left to its own resources, its very dependence upon 
individual and personal ettbrt evoked the enthusiasm nec- 
essary to meet the exigency. So the management of party 



[50] 

conventions and elections, thechoiceof delegates, the selec- 
tion of candidates, the expression of political opinions and 
framing and shaping party policy is, above all, the business 
of the people in their primary, voluntary, party associa- 
tions, free from any official suggestions, dictation, or con- 
trol. To preserve this supremacy is of the very essence 
of representative government ; the people must assert their 
mastery, or their servants will become their lords. If the 
people do not value their right and appreciate their privi- 
lege, if they neglect or refuse to devote to this, their own 
and the greatest public business, the necessary time, over- 
sight, personal attention and participation and money, suc- 
cessfully to conduct it to its legitimate and successful issue, 
then, to that extent, democratic institutions become inert 
and fail. The whole conduct of politics will fall into the 
hands of those who will consider themselves justiiied by 
their monopoly in turning it to their own and not the profit 
of the pubUc. 

We do not find, however, in other spheres of voluntary 
associated action any such weakness in the character of our 
people. The number of voluntary associations for society, 
for business, for amusement, for instruction, for charity, for 
mutual aid, in sickness and in health, for purposes con- 
nected with religion, coupled with the intelligent appreci- 
ation of political questions pervading all classes of the 
community, and the prevalent fondness for political dis- 
cussion, the cheapness and number of newspapers, devoted 
lar'gely to the spread of political news and ideas, and the 
habit of making and hearing public speeches on political 
topics, certainly furnish the most ample guarantees that 
political parties will not die of inanition, even if they 
ceased to be fed from the public cribs. 

If anything were needed to commend to the American 
people the idea of a complete and efiectual separation of 
official influence from the free expression of political opin- 
ion and feeling, through the voluntary action of parties 
organized by the people, we shall find it in the spectacle 
now presented in the so-called Republic of France. There 
we see the striking example of a contrast. There the 



[51] 

President, Marshal McMahon, dissolved the legishitive 
body of Representatives of the People, because he chose to 
believe their political opinions were heretical and danger- 
ous. And, although that dissolution could only constitu- 
tionally take place, in order to make a renewed appeal, in 
a new election, to the will of the people, to be expressed 
through universal suffrage, instead of submitting that ap- 
peal to the people, impartially and without the bias from 
ofhcial coercion, he turns the whole combined official ma- 
chinery of the government into an open and powerful 
electioneering agency for avowed government candidates. 
Every one can see what a satire it is upoti the freedom of 
the representative principle. And yet that is just the pos- 
sibility, which, when the habit of political independence 
on the part of the people is destroyed liere ])y disuse, 
that the Civil Service Reform is instituted to avert. The 
Administration voluntarily offers to the people, and urges 
upon their acceptance, the right, uuinHuenced and uncon- 
strained by official interference, to control the whole ma- 
chinery of party government. Let them beware, lest, from 
inertia, rejecting their opportunity, they seek hereafter to 
reclaim their rights when it is too late to regain them. 
Let them learn a lesson from the fable. King Log is better 
than King Stork. 

It is no doubt perfectly true that the present stage of the 
proposed Reform of the Civil Service is quite unsatisfac- 
tory ; that it needs to be matured and developed ; that time 
and experience are needed to make it definite, and to eclu- 
cate public opinion and official habit to its hearty recogni- 
tion and acceptance. Nevertheless much has been done 
simply by making a beginning ; for it is perhaps one of 
those cases in which, while it is the first step that costs the 
most effort, it also achieves substantially the complete re- 
sult. 

Much too, perhaps, remains to be supplied by legislation. 
For one, I should hail with satisfaction the enactment of a 
law which should make it illegal for any member of Con- 
gress to solicit or recommend an appointment to Federal 
office, unless in answer to officii^l inquiry; a law which at 



[ 52 ] 

least could be pleaded in bar of the importunities to enlist 
his supposed influence, which, whether to resist or gratify, 
is an intolerable burden. Then, too, something may be 
done in diminishing the amount of the Executive patron- 
age ; as in case of Marshals of the United States, by lodg- 
ing the power of appointment in the Courts, whose minis- 
terial officers they are, as has alwa3's been the case in regard 
to their clerks ; and, as has been suggested by others, by 
providing for the nomination of Postmasters by local au- 
thority, representing the community for whose benefit this 
service is specially designed. And in many extensive de- 
partments of the public service, including the entire fixed 
clerical force employed in the Executive business at the 
National Capital, the Consular service, the Revenue ser- 
vice, both Customs and Internal, the principle might be 
introduced of indefinite tenures, and appointments, in all 
but the lowest grade, only by way of promotion. By thdse 
and other means, as the experience of others and our own 
may suggest, we can gradually, but ultimately, establish 
the Civil Service of the Government, except as to offices 
w4iose administration is affected by the general policy of 
the political party, upon a basis of efficiency, equal to that 
of our Military and Naval establishments, and purify the 
politics of the Nation from at least a portion of the cor- 
rupt taint communicated by the prevalent lust for office. 

THE SILVER QUESTION. 

The Republican Convention at Cleveland, upon the 
question of restoring silver to its place in our coinage, ex- 
pressed itself in the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That we are in favor of both silver and gold 
as money ; that both shall be a legal tender for the payment 
of all debts, except where otherwise specially provided by 
law, with coinage and valuation so regulated, that our 
people shall not be placed at a disadvantage in our trade 
with foreign nations, and that both metals shall be kept in 
circulation as the money of the nation, as contemplated by 
the Constitution; and we therefore demand the remonetiza- 
tion of silver." 



[ 53 ] 

This is a very distinct declaration in favor of the rc- 
establishraent of the bi-metallic standard, and of the re- 
storation of silver, not as a subsidiary coinage, but on an 
equal footing with gold, as a legal tender, in payment of 
all debts, and in all sums, except where the law otherwise 
specially provides. The only conditions to its reraonetiza- 
tion are, that the coinage and the valuation shall be so re- 
gulated that we shall not suffer in our foreign trade, and 
that both metals shall be kept in circulation together at 
home. This qualilication as to the coinage is undoubtedly 
necessary and proper. In the present relation between the 
market value of gold and silver bullion, it would be out of 
the question to permit the free coinage of silver on private 
account. The coinage of silver should, for the present, be 
made on government account alone, and in quantities 
which would not prevent the circulation of gold. The 
single and simple limitation upon the amount coined will 
be ample for this purpose. This would be merely follow- 
ing the example of the Latin Union, the members of which, 
by restricting the quantum of their annual coinage of 
silver, have counteracted the policy of Germany in de- 
monetizing silver, and prevented the loss by export of their 
gold. The same principle is illustrated by our subsidiary 
coin, which, although depreciated below the standard value 
of our own silver bullion, nevertheless is kept in circulation 
by a demand, which the government preserves by avoiding 
an excess in issue. The only limit as to coinage, therefore,, 
is to keep it in the control of the government, so as not to 
issue it faster, or in greater quantities, than it can be 
absorbed in the circulation by the legitimate demands for 
its use. No regulation is needed in respect to the ratio of 
valuation between gold and silver, except to adhere, for 
the present, to that heretofore known to our laws, namely, 
one to about sixteen. This is more conservative than the 
valuation established in other countries, where both metals 
are used, and in the present condition of affairs, gives us an 
advantage, in respect to the object proposed, of preserving 
both metals in our circulation. Under the influence of the 
restricted coinage of silver in France, where tlie ratio of 



[54] 

silver to gold is fifteen and one-half to one, gold continues 
to circulate on an equal footing with silver, without being 
driven out by the cheaper metal. Of course, a similar re- 
sult in this country is more certainly assured by a valua- 
tion, according to which gold is rated higher in its silver 
value, than in France. If in that country, where gold only 
commands fifteen and a half times its weight in silver, it is 
not found profitable to export it to other countries, then 
there will be no danger of its exportation from this coun- 
try, where it will command sixteen times its weight in 
silver. The tendency, on the contrary, would be, for our 
silver to flow to France, and other silver-using countries, 
in exchange for their gold, which we valued at a higher 
price; a tendency, however, as already stated, which those 
countries counteract by linuting the amount of their silver 
coinage. 

All the conditions, then, prescribed by the Republican 
resolution for the remonetization of silver will be adequately 
fulfilled by the restoration to our coinage and currency of 
the ancient silver dollar, on government account alone, 
and under the control of the government as to the rapidity 
and quantity of the actual coinage. As the capacity of 
our mints is limited to an annual coinage, as is said, of less 
than fifty millions, before any excess could be put in circu- 
lation the tendency and eflect of the new silver currency 
would be ascertained from actual experience, and developed 
evils corrected by necessary legislation. 

There seems to be in the resolution of the liepublican 
Convention an implication that there may possibly be exist- 
ing special legislation which would forbid silver, when 
restored, from being a legal tender in all cases. An exam- 
ination of our legislation will show that there is no ground 
for any such intimation. 

The facts of our legislation, aftecting this point, are not 
susceptible of dispute. The original coinage act, of April 
2, 1792, established the dollar, or unit, to be of the value 
of a Spanish milled dollar, as then current, and to contain 
371-^ grains of pure silver, the proportional value of gold 
to silver in all cases, current as money, being fixed as fit- 



[55] 

teen to one. This continued in force until the coinage act 
of January 18, 1837, when the ratio of value between gold 
and silver was changed to a proportion of about sixteen to 
one, by changing the quantity of pure gold in the gold 
coins, but leaving the quantity of pure silver in the dollar 
precisely as it always before had been. The weight of the 
coined silver dollar was reduced from 416 grains of stand- 
ard silver to 412J ; but this was eftected by changing the 
amount of alloy alone. On the other hand, the gold unit, 
or dollar, of 1792 contained twent3'-four seventy-five hun- 
dredth grains of pure gold, while that of 1837 consisted 
only of twenty-three twent3^-two hundredths of pure gold. 
Gold, in other words, had been undervalued in the original 
ratio ; and it was reduced in quantity in proportion to sil- 
ver by the new regulations of 1837. But the silver dollar 
remained precisely the same, and was a legal tender accord- 
ing to its nominal value for any sums whatever. 

This continued to be the law until the coinage act of 
February 12, 1873, and that did not alter the legal quality 
of the original silver dollar. It indeed, declared that the 
one dollar gold piece of the standard weight of twenty-five 
eight-tenth grains, but containing the previously established 
quantity of pure gold, namel}', twenty-three twenty-two 
hundredth grains, should be the unit of value; and it pro- 
vided that the silver coins of the United States should be 
— a trade dollar, a half dollar, a quarter dollar, and a dime ; 
the trade dollar weighing 420 grains of standard silver, 
but 378 grains of pure silver, being 6| grains more than 
was contained in the old silver dollar ; and this trade dol- 
lar, with the other named silver coins, was declared to be 
a legal tender for amounts not exceeding live dollars in 
one payment. But nothing was said as to the original sil- 
ver dollar, and it was left, so far as the law was concerned) 
where it stood before. Its complete and final demonetiza- 
tion is due to a section of the Revised Statutes (sec. 3516), 
which prohibited the future issue from the mint of any 
coins other than those specifically enumerated, the old sil- 
ver dollar having been dropped from the list, and sec. 3586, 



[56] 

which limits the legal tender quality of all silver coins to 
the amount of five dollars. 

There is no claim made, that prior to March 18, 18G9, 
any of the obligations of the government were by law 
specially payable in gold. On the contrary, until that time, 
the question was whether, by the terms of the law creating 
them, they were not payable in legal-tender paper money 
or greenbacks. To settle that question Congress passed 
the act of that date, " to strengthen the public credit," It 
was thereby provided and declared, in order to remove any 
doubt as to the purpose of the government to discharge all 
just obligations to the public creditors, and to settle con- 
flicting questions and interpretations of the laws by virtue 
of which such obligations had been contracted, that the 
faith of the United States was thereby solemnly pledged to 
the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all the obligations 
of the United States not bearing interest, known as the 
United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obliga- 
tions of the United States, except in cases where the law 
authorizing the issue of such obligations had expressly pro- 
vided that the same might be paid in lawful money or other 
currency than gold and silver. As none of these obligations 
were, by the law creating them, made expressly payable in 
other currency than gold and silver, this pledge applied to 
the entire public debt as then outstanding. The same act 
of Congress also solemnly pledged the faith of the United 
States to make provision, at the earliest practicable period, 
for the redemption of the United States notes in coin. 

It will be observed that in this act the pledge is to pay 
in coin, and coin is used as meaning gold and silver. 

The funding act of July 14, 1870, provides for the issue 
of the bonds bearing interest at 5, 4|, and 4 per cent., the 
aggregate amount of 1,500 millions, for the purpose of re- 
tiring and funding the 5-20 bonds, so-called, which bore a 
higher rate of interest. The bonds authorized to be issued 
for that purpose were expressly made " redeemable in coin 
of the 'present standard value," and " bearing interest, pay- 
able semi-annually, in such coin." 

The Specie Resumption Act, of January 14, 1875, de- 



[57] 

Clares " that on and after the 1st day of Jannarj^ a. d. 1879, 
the Secretary of the Treasury shall, redeem, in coin, the 
United States legal-tender notes then outstanding, on their 
presentation for redemption at the office of the Assistant- 
Treasurer of the United States, in the city of New York, 
in sums not less than $50. And to enable the Secretary of 
the Treasury to prepare and provide for the redemption in 
this act authorized or required, he is authorized to use any 
surplus revenues, from time to time in the Treasury, not 
otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and dispose of, at 
not less than j^ar in coin, either of the description of bonds 
of the United States, described in the act of Congress ap- 
proved July 14, 1870, entitled " An Act to authorize the 
Eefunding of the National Debt," with like privileges and 
exceptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into 
effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes 
aforesaid." 

So that the bonds authorized to be issued under this act 
are, like those authorized by the Funding Act of July 14, 
1870, to be redeemable in coin of the standard value of that 
date. 

The fact, then, clearly appears that no part of the public 
debt of the United States, by virtue of any special pro- 
visions of law under which it was contracted, is payable 
otherwise than in coin, consisting of gold and silver of the 
standard value, as established by law in force on the 14th 
day of July, 1870. As on that date the silver dollar, contain- 
ing 371i grains of pure silver— the ancient silver dollar, 
the dollar of the fathers— was a lawful coin of the United 
States, of standard value, and a legal tender in all sums for 
the payment of all debts, equally with coins of gold, the 
conclusion is irresistible that the United States have to-day 
the legal right to pay every part of its debt, principal and 
interest, as it becomes due, in coins of that description ; 
and, if they can not otherwise be procured, to purchase in 
the open market silver bullion, at any price, no matter how 
cheap, and coin that description of silver dollars in any 
amounts needed for that purpose. 

The question of legal right being disposed of in that way. 



[58] 

disposes of the question of moral right iu the same way. 
It does not, of course, always happen that legal and moral 
right coincide. But here it is a question of good faith, and 
we have already seen that the only faith expressly pledged 
was to pay in coin, of gofd or silver, of the then current 
standard value. iN'o implication can be raised where the 
contract is express, and it does not alter the case to say 
that, in point of fact, no silver coins were in circulation and 
the coinage had long before ceased. Gold coins were not 
in general circulation either; but what is more to the 
point, and quite conclusive, is, that the right and option to 
coin silver dollars and use them in payment of debts, was 
at the time undiminished. The silver dollar was a lawful 
coin, a legal tender, and the government, neither expressly 
nor by any implication, gave any pledge not to resume its 
coinage and use it in payment. Any opinion to the con- 
trary, that it would not be done, was individual merely — 
nothing but a personal conjecture — and not binding on the 
public authorit3\ The law itself was notice to the world 
of the continued existence of the right ; and no one had 
any ground to presume that the government would not re- 
store silver to its currency in lawful payment of its obli- 
gations whenever considerations of public policy, which 
are merely motives of public interest, should incline it so 
to do. 

There is nothing, then, to prevent the restoration of the 
silver dollar to its place in our currency, as an unlimited 
legal tender, so far as payment of the public creditor 
is concerned, except considerations of expediency. If to 
do so would depreciate the public credit, lower the market 
value of the four per cent, bonds, and interfere materially 
with the process of refunding the public debt at a lower rate 
of interest — iu other words, if it shall appear to be in the 
public interest to pay the principal and interest of the 
bonds in gold, then, clearly, it ought to be done ; but not 
otherwise ; and if it is to be done, let it be said by author- 
ity of law, which all will understand and respect. 

It seems to be thought by some, that as gold has been 
exacted by the Treasury in payment of the bonds issued 



[59] 

under the act of July 14, 1870, that that imposed upon the 
government the obligation to construe the contract as an 
obligation to repay interest and principal in gold. But 
that circumstance can not afiect the construction of the 
law, although it may establish an equity in favor of its 
modification. The same appeal, however, was not enter- 
tained when it was urged in favor of paying the five- 
twenties in greenbacks, that that was the currency in which 
the}^ had been purchased. 

But the question of remonetizing silver is altogether dis- 
tinct from the question in what coin the public debt ought 
to be paid ; and each must be decided, as every other pub- 
lic question, independently, on its owni merits, and upon its 
own public policy. If we remonetized silver, we can still 
pay our bonds in gold, if we are bound to do so, or if, with- 
out an obligation, we still see fit to do so, for any suflicient 
reason ; and if, by remonetizing silver, we make it easier 
and cheaper to pay in gold, certainly those who claim the 
right to be paid in gold have no right to object. 

That such will be the efi:ect is my firm conviction, and it 
furnishes the controlling reason why we should restore to 
our coinage and currency the silver dollar as proposed. 

It seems to be assumed throughout, as an indisputable 
proposition, by the opponents of the silver restoration, that 
its remonetization will have the eflect merely to drive away 
the gold coin, without increasing the value of silver ; that 
the present diflerence in value between gold and silver bul- 
lion will be maintained after the remonetization of silver 
has been effected. And this is based upon the further as- 
sumption, that that present difterence is based upon a per- 
manent depreciation in the value of silver, in consequence 
of the large increase of its recent annual production from 
our mines. 

This assumption leaves out of the account entirely, as 
circumstances of no significance, the demonetization of 
silver in the German empire, the consequent restriction of 
its coinage by the Latin Union, the demonetization of sil- 
ver in this country, and the financial derangements that 
have prevented its usual ex^tort to India ; all wiruh have 



[60] 

conspired simultaneously to diministi the demand for it, at 
the very time when the supply was largely increased. 

The effect of remonetizing silver fully may be inferred 
from the influence already exerted by the introduction into 
our coinage of the comparatively small amounts needed for 
subsidiary coins. It is stated by the report made to the 
House of Commons, by the select committee of which Mr- 
Goschen was chairman, in Jul}", 1876, that the latest in- 
crease in the new mines in this country had not thrown 
any additional supplies of silver on the European markets ; 
that the cause of the diminished export of silver, notwith- 
standing the increased production, is to be sought in the 
coining operations of the United States government, and 
is due, in the main, to an act passed for substituting silver 
coin for the paper " fractional currency." And in speak- 
ing of the effect of the demonetization of silver upon its 
exchangeable value as a commodity, the same report saj'S 
"that it is obvious that if effect should be given to the 
policy of substituting gold for silver, wherever it is feasi- 
ble, and giving gold, for the sake of its advantages in in- 
ternational commerce, the preference even among })opula- 
tions whose habits and customs are in favor of silver, and 
thus displacing silver from the position (which it has al- 
ways occupied) of doing the work of the currency over at 
least as large an area as gold, no possible limits can be as- 
signed to the further fall in its value which would inevita- 
bly take place." It is equally obvious that a contrary 
policy would have a contrar}'^ effect. And Mr. Walter 
Bagehot, one of the best authorities on such a subject in 
England, writing in April, 1877, said: "I consider that 
the rise in the price of silver, from 47d. last summer to 
55 j(/. now, shows the preceding great fall from 54^^/. last 
February, to be only a momentary accident in a new and 
weak market, and not the permanent effect of lasting causes.'' 
(Preface to Depreciation of Silver.) And elsewhere, con- 
trasting the prices of gold and silver, he states explicitly 
that "there is no evidence whatever that general prices in 
any country where prices are measured in silver, have risen 
iu any such ratio ;" in other words, that silver has not 



[Gl] 

fallen, but gold has risen, in proportion to the average 
general prices of other commodities. And the same writer, 
speaking expressly of the etfect of bringing silver again 
into use as a currency in this country, says : 

"If they (the United States) did, it is certain that the 
price in silver would for the moment rise, because so very 
large an extra quantity would at once be required, and it is 
very possible that this price might not again fall. The 
final regulation of tlie price of silver is the cost at which 
it can be produced in the least fertile mine that can main- 
tain itself in working. At the present moment there are 
new mines as to whose extent there are very various ac- 
counts, which may supersede some of the worst of those 
at work, and so lessen the maximum cost of the pro- 
duction of silver — the cost which fixes its price. But it 
so large a new demand for silver as that for supplying the 
United States with money were added to the existing de- 
mauds, very possibly the extra fertility of these new mines 
misrht be exhausted before that demand was satisfied. 
These new mines might come to be not so much better 
than the old ones as to throw any old mine out of work; 
and if so, the price of silver would remain ii)hat it formerly 
was. And if this hapinned, silver would be as good a standard 
of value as it has ever been" 

And in this country Mr. David A. Wells, writing against 
the proposal to restore silver to the currency, took pains to 
remove the supposed argument in its favor, based on the 
cheapness of such currency, by showing that its necessary 
efiect would be to equalize its value with that of gold. 

That is precisely the reason why the measure should be 
adopted, because it would raise the price of silver in terms of 
gold, by reducing the price of gold, and bringing both coins 
ultimately to the same par. In this way no injustice would 
be done to the public creditor, whom, then, it would be as 
easy to pay in gold as silver ; and the silver added to the 
circulation would be equal to an accumulation of that 
amount of gold. In the double coin the transition could 
more easily be made, by which our paper currency would 
be convertible at par into either coin ; and the great injus- 



[62] 

tice, hardship, and bankruptcy involved in requiring pri- 
vate contracts, made in a currency of irredeemable paper, 
to be performed in gold, and the value of that gold greatly 
enhanced by giving it a monopoly of the currency, would 
be averted. 

I join, therefore, heartil}^ in the demand for the remone- 
tization of silver — the restoration to our coinage and cur- 
renc}- of the ancient silver dollar — without other limit than 
is secured by government control of its quantity, guided 
by an experience of the results. It is equally the demand 
of justice and sound public policy, the indispensible condi- 
tion and only safe road to Resumption — a resumption of 
specie payments which shall not retire and cancel our 
Treasury Notes, but make them equal in value to silver and 
gold, and exchangeable at par with coin, on demand — and 
so preserve and perpetuate them as our National Currency 
— the cheapest, the most uniform, the perfect American 
Currency. 



X 



4 



LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 



ilil 
013 789 607 2 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 789 607 2 



DeRmalTte« 



